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

Rising scepticism - a chill wind?

Richard Black | 17:52 UK time, Friday, 5 February 2010

Over the last few months, a number of British commentators have been trumpeting an increase in scepticism about climate change.

The cold weather (often claimed - incorrectly - to be a hemisphere-wide phenomenon), the University of East Anglia e-mail hack, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's lack of rigour over projections of Himalayan glacier melt, the weak outcome from the Copenhagen summit: all these and more have been proclaimed as factors that are said to be deflecting the public away from climate concern.

IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan SinghNow comes evidence from an opinion poll - commissioned by the BBC, carried out by Populus - indicating that in Britain at least, tales of increasing scepticism may be true.

The headline stats are that between November last year and the beginning of February this year, there has been a net 9% downwards swing in the proportion of Britons believing that "the Earth's climate is changing and global warming is taking place".

Having said that, three-quarters of the population still believes global warming is a real phenomenon.

However, only one quarter believes it is a fact and that it is largely man-made - down from two-fifths last November.

Determining the cause of this change, however, is less easy.

More than half of respondents said they were aware of news stories about "flaws or weaknesses in climate science".

But in this group, 16% said they were now more convinced of the risks of climate change, against only 11% who were less convinced; so if exposure to "ClimateGate" or "GlacierGate" or other such issues has done anything, it has increased confidence in the scientific picture of greenhouse warming.

Which perhaps leaves the weather as a key factor. Having to dig your car out of a snowbank and sending the kids out to make a snowman would, you might think, tend to mitigate against belief in warnings of a dangerously warming world ahead.

Backing this argument, 83% of respondents said they were aware of news stories about the "coldest winter on record" (substantially more than were aware of reporting on the Copenhagen summit, incidentally).

David Cameron in the ArcticSo if this poll gives an accurate reflection of a change in public opinion, who does it vindicate, who does it encourage, and who does it depress?

It hardly vindicates those who see all the various "gate" stories as "exposing the climate science fraud", because if anything - as discussed above - exposure to these stories co-incided with rising confidence in the science, although the numbers are small.

It will encourage those hoping for a crack to emerge in the cross-party consensus on climate change pervading UK politics at the moment.

With a general election looming and political advisers looking for anything that could give them an edge, the poll comes at an apposite time for anyone arguing that their particular party should break the mould and downscale plans for wind turbines, energy-efficient lightbulbs and "walking buses".

It might well depress anyone who sees climate change as a real and looming danger, whether for UK citizens or people in less affluent parts of the world. Bob Watson, chief science adviser for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), said it was "very disappointing".

But should he be so gloomy? If the mood really has been changed by a localised spell of cold weather - and that is a theory rather than a conclusion, I know - it shouldn't depress them too much.

Because who knows? An unusually hot summer - and globally, January was the warmest on record, in case you missed it, and El Nino conditions pertain in the Pacific - and fickle opinion might turn again.

One set of people who perhaps ought to be concerned are those working in the British media.

It would be interesting to see whether all 83% of those who had heard it was the "coldest winter on record" were also aware that the cold snap did not apply to the whole globe or even half the globe, but was much more limited in its extent.

Were all editors as rigorous as they might have been in making sure this context was put across - or was the footage of British snowploughs and closed British schools so compelling as to banish thoughts of including balance from further afield?

In terms of the global politics of climate change, it's hard to see the poll results making any difference at all.

One of the lessons of Copenhagen is that the question of whether and how the international community will get to grips with rising emissions is currently in the gift of a small, select group of nations - and the UK isn't one of them.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 7:12pm on 05 Feb 2010, FergalR wrote:

    I'm guessing 75% of the collapse is from the weather and 25% from the IPCC/climatology lies. Great post Mr. Black.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 7:18pm on 05 Feb 2010, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Richard

    Hi

    There are a number of climate related investigations being carried out - even within the BBC I believe? - the results of which will have some bearing on how sentiments is shaped as we go forward.

    The AGW movement has certainly had some serious set backs in the last few months and may have to deal with further blows to credibility as the MSM start to do the job that until recently had only been done by much disparaged blogs.

    Personally I think that climate change will be a major election issue, but it does very much depend on what comes out in the wash over the next few months.

    My wish is for science to be done in a scientific way. Until this happens and is seen to be happening scepticism will continue to be rife.

    regards

    SB

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 7:23pm on 05 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Richard Black.

    "Now comes evidence from an opinion poll - commissioned by the BBC, carried out by Populus.."

    given that you quote proportions and percentages from this poll, I'm a little disappointed not know the sample size.

    "In terms of the global politics of climate change, it's hard to see the poll results making any difference at all."

    diasagree, it might give an opportunistic government (after the elections ;)) 'reason' to renege on commitments.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 7:28pm on 05 Feb 2010, britononthemitten wrote:

    Richard.

    I'm absolutely amazed that you sound surprised by this poll's findings. You really are living in a bubble; I'm disappointed. I’m disappointed that it seems you think the public are so stupid that they are likely to be swayed by this last month’s weather.

    The media have not failed to explain things properly - they've fully explained details like the fact the Chairman of the IPCC knew the Glacier report was nonsense BEFORE Copenhagen but was happy to let it go. That little fact on its own ought to result in poll numbers like these never mind the 50 other inconvenient truths the public have been lied to over!

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 7:32pm on 05 Feb 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Lovely picture of doggies and snow plow. Is that the tip of the houses of parliament peaking out of the snow or have I got the wrong definition of snowed under?
    If climate change becomes a major election issue, how do you think the door to door canvassers will travel and what will they be wearing to look the part? Are there enough carts and horses to go around or do you think they will be canvassing by shanks pony?

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 7:34pm on 05 Feb 2010, Tom Holden wrote:

    This poll is defective. Firstly there seems to be no "Don't know" and then more relevently there is no option for "don't care". The whole debate seems to assume that if you believe in climate change then you must support the cures i.e. recycling, energy conservation, carbon taxes etc. I firmly believe climate change is happening but I couldn't care less if it man-made or a natural cycle. I am simply waiting for the politician finally start talking about plan B. Put simply this is the maintenance of the standard of living of the people who actually vote for them and not of those elsewhere on the globe.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 7:47pm on 05 Feb 2010, John wrote:

    The opinion poll shows that the British people are not as gullible as believed by the government and the BBC.
    The history of the CRU shows just how determined the scientists were to get the "right" results regardless of what the data showed.
    We learn that Ben Santer rewrote the IPCC summary when the consensus was that there was no evidence to support that the warming was anthropogenic.
    Why are you surprised that when people read this sort of stuff and become sceptical?
    The recent demise of the IPCC shows that they have made outrageous claims in AR4, many of which were not peer reviewed and a number of which were taken from green activists. How much of this do you think people will accept?
    And now we have Bob Watson warning that we must be corrected in our misreading of the situation.
    There is no misreading.
    There is clear evidence of fraud and manipulation of data.
    There is clear evidence of lies being promulgated to achieve political ends.
    It's time to stop this farce and to reintroduce real science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 7:50pm on 05 Feb 2010, Simonm wrote:

    Having a serious view of Climate Change implies a level of interest if not knowledge of things scientific, even if at a very low level. Sadly we live in a society where a very large minority, perhaps a majority have no interest in science. To base anything on a poll like this is misunderstanding the knowledge or interest of those polled. In particular when the evidence "weather" has little or no relationship to "climate". Anyway, for the vast majority, climate change is a total irrelevance, what is not affecting me now isn't real! Perhaps a simple analogy is the level of public voting - they are paying to vote - in TV celebrity shows where the result is irrelevant to the voter, and the level of voting at elections where the result has an impact on peoples lives for the next 5 years.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 7:51pm on 05 Feb 2010, Flatearther wrote:

    The questions are incorrectly worded and so will get the wrong answers. Everybody, one would hope, realises that the climate has always changed and so climate change is real. Global warming may or may not be happening. Since the data has been so corrupted, we do not know. But if it is happening, so what? We would expect global warming to happen 50% of the time and global cooling to happen 50% of the time. The trouble is that the IPCC, the government, the BBC, the education system and others have skewed the language to make people think that climate change and global warming only occur due to human causes. The BBC with this poll just continues this terrible mis-use of language in favour of its bias.

    Do I believe in climate change? Absolutely.

    What we can state unequivocally is that warming is good and cooling is bad.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 8:12pm on 05 Feb 2010, dogeared wrote:

    This is hugely depressing yet not surprising.

    I think of the human race idly picking around on a beach where the tide has suddenly gone out and in the distance a very large tsunami is building.

    The trouble is very few will believe the catastrophe approaching until they can see it, because no one knows who to believe any more, including the ridiculous IPCC.

    But whatever, it will be too late then, because it's actually too late now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 8:29pm on 05 Feb 2010, Colonicus III wrote:

    Its wierd that the less attention something gets the less doubt there is about the facts surrounding it. I think there needs to be some serious explination in this case though. To much weight has wrongly been given to the skeptics and deniers (hate using those words, but you know what they mean) by the media and the balance of comunication ability is stacked wildley in their favour.
    The debate never should have existed in the first place.
    I personaly blame the Internet, it has given credibility to those who are undeserving and forums such as this get populated by the angry minority who churn out false, incorrect and unfounded arguments without any recourse. The only thing that can be done is to explain or rebut them but all this does is start a debate where there should be no debate, which only makes the problem worse.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 8:47pm on 05 Feb 2010, FergalR wrote:

    That's a joke post, right Colonicus?

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 8:48pm on 05 Feb 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    There are those who believe the earth is flat, but it doesn't make it so. When the British built the first railroad in China the people along the track protested that the noise would make the earth gods upset so the emperor had the railroad disassembled and thrown in the ocean. There are many railroads in China. Climate Change is not up for a vote. Whether the governments do anything or not the problems will continue. Politicans are generally cowards and put off every decision until they have no options but to deal with it. ETS will be the first thing done because it doesn't do anything to solve the problem but financial services can make a lot of money, governments will collect taxes and politicans can say they are addressing the problem, when they are not. Doing nothing would be better. Because the winter is cold does not mean the summer will not be hot.
    Chinese proverb: A wise person makes his own decisions, a weak one obeys public opinion.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 8:50pm on 05 Feb 2010, dave wrote:

    More spin Richard...putting the best gloss you can on the fact that 76% are not convinced by about AGW despite all your partisan reports to persuade them.
    Are we aware that not every inch of the earth was covered in snow or suffering abnormally cold weather? Well a fair percentage of it was....China, America, South America, Europe, Russia etc. How long did it take before you reported the enormous snow storms in the US? Weeks. You seem to have forgotten the BBC's own reports from Bolivia telling us that 4 years running they have suffered abnormally cold winters coming early.
    And what of India? They are backing the IPCC are they? Funny that they should be setting up their own climate institute because the IPCC is not reliable.

    Your words: 'More importantly, Mr Singh's choice of words makes clear that despite the IPCC's recently documented lapse over the likely melting date for Himalayan glaciers, his government finds no reason to dispute the panel's core projections about the progress of climate change or its impacts.'

    India's: The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri. but last night Mr Ramesh effectively marginalized the IPCC chairman even further.
    He announced the Indian government will established a separate National
    Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor the effects of climate change on the world’s ‘third ice cap’, and an ‘Indian IPCC’ to use ‘climate science’ to assess the impact of global warming throughout the country.


    You are not a reporter, just a promoter of the AGW cause, a shambles who should take a step back, and stop embarrassing himself and the BBC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 8:53pm on 05 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    brazenearlybird writes (#7)"The opinion poll shows that the British people are not as gullible as believed by the government and the BBC."

    and that is also the message put out on BBC 24H News (which, incidentally, qouted (around 2030h) 2001 respondents instead of the 1001 actually polled; how very reassuring).

    kaisersose points out (#6) that: "This poll is defective. Firstly there seems to be no "Don't know" and then more relevently there is no option for "don't care"."

    while I believe you're correct we have no means of telling, kaisersose, because all we're shown is processed results, not data. AND we have no access to the data collection tool (ie questionnaire).

    but it gets worse, populus inform us, in the pdf, that telephone polling was used.

    the definition, from the populus.co.uk website:

    "Telephone Polling

    Everyone in the country with a landline telephone has an equal random chance of being polled in a Populus telephone survey. Within each region a random sample of telephone numbers is drawn from the entire BT database of domestic telephone numbers. Each number selected has its last digit randomised so as to provide a sample including both listed and unlisted numbers.

    Using this technique – known as random probability sampling – gives us a robust statistical basis for national representative polls, accurate to a small margin of error."

    however, this is not so.

    first, there are 'no-call' lists where subscribers can register to not be contacted by marketing organisations. second, an increasing number of people do not actually use a landline because their mobile is the only phone they have.

    in conclusion, this poll is more likely to be worthless propaganda than an actual reflection of what people think.


    Richard Black.

    do you think it justified for the BBC to further muddy the waters by using a telephone poll of unknown quality, with a sample size of less than one-sixhundredth of one percent of the population asked?

    especially since you must be aware of how polls are used by both sides to peddle their 'arguments'?

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 9:24pm on 05 Feb 2010, texasfrank wrote:

    #3, #15 jr4412 - the poll questions and the breakdown of the results is linked from the main news page carrying the story - here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8500443.stm. The sample size is 1001.

    #10 dogeared, #11 colonicus - please can you explain to me how you know that it's man-made CO2 that's responsible? What is your understanding of the basis on which the IPCC and others conclude this?

    Richard Black - what the heck - same question to you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 9:32pm on 05 Feb 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:


    alstod:

    Your tone and information reflect your ignorance. India's decisions are political not scientific. You may wish to recognize that India is a growing economy supported by coal powered energy...coincidence to you. This is a stated problem of a system, overtime and you and others who knit-pick and extract little bits of data and make great generalized claims only shows your lack of understanding. The BBC allows you to state your views yet you are highly critical. If it was all a conspiracy, they wouldn't let you state your views. Don't keep your ear so close to the radio it is doing damage to your ability to comprehend.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 9:41pm on 05 Feb 2010, Country-Bumpkin wrote:

    As someone who had grown rather tired of the claims and counter-claims on comment boards such as this, a few months ago I decided to try and find out for myself. I'm currently hacking my way through part 1 of the IPCC report itself. A few things struck me early on.

    Firstly, the sheer weight of scientific papers that support the AGW consensus - there's thousands of them. Therefore, one question is; does the IPCC report itself accurately reflect the body of work in these papers? Since I'm unaware of hundreds of scientists complaining that they have been misrepresented, I concluded that it does. One paper that I read was from the American National Academy of Sciences (Charney at al) and described the basic science way back in 1979. In other words, the science has so far proven to be robust enough to survive 30 years+ worth of scrutiny.

    Secondly, where are the scientific papers to support the contrarian viewpoint? Sure there's a few, but the number is miniscule compared to those supporting the AGW consensus.

    Next, why are so few of the sceptics / contrarians / whatever actually climate scientists? The few that are (e.g. Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen) don't dispute the basic science, but are instead critical of the models and the (in their view) alarmist future predictions.

    One thing that the sceptics are though is noisy and they certainly make themselves heard, which I guess why so many of the general public are either sceptical or confused about the whole issue.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 9:51pm on 05 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    texasfrank #16.

    "The sample size is 1001."

    yes, know, see #15; wrote #3 as I did because I think Richard's post would have read different had he included that (small) figure alongside.

    "the poll questions and the breakdown of the results.."

    summaries only, without questionnaire cannot tell whether all possible answers present (also, see #6).

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 10:10pm on 05 Feb 2010, FergalR wrote:

    Country-Bumpkin;
    Here are a few papers that dispute AGW or aspects of it.
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
    As you may know there is evidence in the climategate emails that the peer review process was gamed by the climatological elite to discredit their critics and interfere with the publication of their papers.

    As to why there are so few sceptical climatologists, please read the CRU's history in their own words and see how poorly funded climate research was before AGW became important. Then ask yourself why so few climate scientists dispute the hypothesis.
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 10:18pm on 05 Feb 2010, bandythebane wrote:

    Poor old Richard. His belief has not wavered and he is ready to clutch at any straw to try to shore it up.

    The January 2009 high is a a very attractive straw and Richard will not be alone in clutching it.

    However before we get too carried away it is perhaps worth remembering that the second warmest January since 1998 was in 2007. It prompted many who share Richard's views (including the Met Office) to forecast all time record warmth for 2007. But if you remember the outcome was that the temperature fall during 2007 was the sharpest seen for many decades.

    It is really dispiriting that in this era os "settled" climate science no one appears to have a clue what is going on.

    I accept that I know as little as anyone else. But I would suggest that the land throughout most of the Northern Hemisphere is a great deal colder than it was in 2007 and it quite possible that the temperature fall that is coming may turn out to be even more dramatic.

    I find it hard to believe that humans have any significant influence on this at all However, let us wait and see.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 10:31pm on 05 Feb 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    People who care for our one and only planet have been betrayed by poor science from the IPCC. Their reasoning is based on sand when it should have been based on rocks.

    Climate changes over time and we need as the inhabitants of the planet to plan to deal with this. That much we can agree.

    The CO2, and the anthropogenic CO2 is another matter. The IPCC went off at half-cock down this track without any solid scientific foundation and by having done so, and now that the foundation of their argument has crumbled; they are doing immense damage to the aims of the rest of us who care for the planet and its people. They have betrayed the people of this earth through their sloppy science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 11:14pm on 05 Feb 2010, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Country Bumpkin

    when you get to table 2.11 in 4AR check out the stated level of scientific understanding of what drives the climate and then ask yourself how they get to a 90% confidence level

    Obviously you have to round this up to 100% confidence if you want to be a true believer. All it needs is a giant leap of faith.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 11:30pm on 05 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #18 Country-Bumpkin wrote:

    "where are the scientific papers to support the contrarian viewpoint?"

    Are there anti-astrological papers in the astrological journals? Are there anti-Creationist papers in the Creationist journals? Why would anyone bother?

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 11:34pm on 05 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "trumpeting an increase in scepticism"

    According to Richard Black, is it possible to simply "report" rather than arrogantly "trumpet" an increase in scepticism?

    As Craig Brown might say:

    I report
    You announce
    They trumpet

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 00:05am on 06 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    \\\ Rising Temperatures & a Warm Ocean Wind ///

    James Hansen has a few really nice graphics on the link posted below, in particular the graph with the five and eleven year running total for the combined land/ocean (i.e. the world) temperature anomaly.

    Usually I have to post Dr. Hansen's columbia website, but this one looks like it is not a pdf, and so can be accessed directly.

    http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 00:12am on 06 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    As I mentioned once or twice before, I think many members of the public are literally in psychological 'denial.'

    From Wikipedia (Denial)

    "DARVO
    An acronym to describe common strategy of abusers: Deny the abuse, then Attack the victim for attempting to make them accountable for their offense, thereby Reversing Victim and Offender. Psychologist Jennifer Freyd[4]. writes:

    "...I have observed that actual abusers threaten, bully and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior. This attack, intended to chill and terrify, typically includes threats of law suits, overt and covert attacks on the whistle-blower's credibility, and so on. The attack will often take the form of focusing on ridiculing the person who attempts to hold the offender accountable. [...] [T]he offender rapidly creates the impression that the abuser is the wronged one, while the victim or concerned observer is the offender. Figure and ground are completely reversed. [...] The offender is on the offense and the person attempting to hold the offender accountable is put on the defense."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial#DARVO

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 00:49am on 06 Feb 2010, ManBearPig4 wrote:

    New paper: Interglacials, Milankovitch Cycles and Carbon Dioxide

    "Carbon dioxide appears to play a very limited role in setting interglacial temperature."

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0597

    And from India
    “An investigation by Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, has revealed that only 13 of the 1,117, or a mere 1 per cent of the scientific papers crosschecked by him, explicitly endorse the consensus as defined by the IPCC.”

    http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-hottest-hoax-in-the-world


    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 00:49am on 06 Feb 2010, MilesNZ wrote:

    I suspect that the "increasing scepticsm" phenomena comes from Global Warming being now - unfortunately - yoked to an unpopular government that has very little in the way of credibility. Whether that low credibility is fairly or unfairly bestowed is beside the point in this case. The point is that low credibility this Goverment has; and, consequently, Global Warming has become tainted by asociation. The trouble is that Global Warming is real - even if David Millibrand says it is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 00:52am on 06 Feb 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @manysummits #27

    There's really not one iota of doubt in you is there? You seem so sincere in your beliefs, but I'm afraid that's all that they are mate.

    You go on to try and make the point that those that do not agree with your world view are essentially guilty of abusing you. I'm genuinely sorry that you see the world that way.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 00:59am on 06 Feb 2010, FergalR wrote:

    manysummits,
    Great charts from Hansen there. His team's prediction of ocean heat content is way off the mark however and water has a much greater heat capacity than air.
    http://i47.tinypic.com/20kvhwn.png

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 01:21am on 06 Feb 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 31 FergalR:

    Levitus et al 2009 ocean heat content shows a sharp rise from 2001 to 2003. It's interesting therefore that the graph you post cuts off all the data prior to 2003...

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 01:32am on 06 Feb 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 23. Spanglerboy

    "when you get to table 2.11 in 4AR check out the stated level of scientific understanding of what drives the climate and then ask yourself how they get to a 90% confidence level"

    The level of uncertainty for each forcing is reflected in figure 2.20 which shows the mean value of each forcing and it's uncertainty range. When the uncertainty range is larger compared to the most likely value, the uncertainty is higher. So for example cloud albedo, contrails and solar irradiance forcings (since 1750) have a low level of understanding because the uncertainty range is greater than the forcing.

    By adding all these forcings and the uncertainty ranges you get a distribution which is also shown in figure 2.20 and I suspect that is what the overall figure of 90% or so is based on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 01:42am on 06 Feb 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    It is of concern that only 61% of people had heard of Copenhagen in the news irrespective of one's views on climate change. I also wouldn't be surprised if a significant number of those were confusing it with the song by Danny Kaye.

    As for:

    More than half of respondents said they were aware of news stories about "flaws or weaknesses in climate science".

    But in this group, 16% said they were now more convinced of the risks of climate change, against only 11% who were less convinced; so if exposure to "ClimateGate" or "GlacierGate" or other such issues has done anything, it has increased confidence in the scientific picture of greenhouse warming.


    I find it difficult to believe that 'flaws or weaknesses in climate science' has increased confidence in the scientific picture of greenhouse warming and can only assume that it has led some true believers to renew their vows.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 01:48am on 06 Feb 2010, Harbanger wrote:

    Funny how the only science that is being attacked is evolution and global warming... both groups against these two things have ulterior motives. i.e. Fundamentalist Christians want to keep peddling their myth regarding creation and oil and energy companies want to make money out of using up the oil reserves BEFORE they turn to renewable energy.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the climate hackers were related to the oil industry. Similar to how the tobacco industry attacked the hard scientific evidence that smoking was bad for people. The oil companies will be successful as well as the general public are too dumb to realise what goes on. In the meantime the intelligent and aware among us have to tolerate the large percentage of intellectually retarded individuals ruining it for us.

    The oil companies will try and find any small issue out of thousands of bits of evidence in order to discredit what threatens their profits. The oil companies have been damaging peoples lives for years and this will continue while they are getting a huge profit.

    Please will people wake up before it's too late. Rather odd how Exxon Mobil has bought up the scientists who developed the algae idea... no doubt they will stall the research! Oh you bet! They are untouchable and the population of the UK are mostly gullible.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 01:49am on 06 Feb 2010, infiniti wrote:

    20. FergalR wrote:

    "As you may know there is evidence in the climategate emails that the peer review process was gamed by the climatological elite to discredit their critics and interfere with the publication of their papers."

    There is evidence in the climategate emails that some very naughty skeptics tried to wave a flawed paper through into a journal via a skeptic friendly editor, which then generated some skeptic headlines for the blogs.

    And when editors of that journal figured out what had happened, 3 of them resigned in protest.

    It's more likely, given the quality of the list of papers you linked to, that most skeptics can't publish (or don't!) because their arguments don't stand up to the cursory scrutiny of peer review. Note that papers by Lindzen and Spencer that do withstand cursory scrutiny have been published, so clearly there is no bias against scientists publishing skeptical papers. It's the quality that's the issue.

    "As to why there are so few sceptical climatologists, please read the CRU's history in their own words and see how poorly funded climate research was before AGW became important. Then ask yourself why so few climate scientists dispute the hypothesis.
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/"

    A collective unspoken conspiracy is unfeasible.

    The reason there are so few sceptical climatologists is because climatologists tend to understand the science better and don't fall for tricks like the "volcanoes emit more co2 than man" (plimer) or "only 3% of co2 is caused by humans" malarky. The AGW hypothesis is strong when it comes down to the science, which is why there are so many climatologists that find it compelling.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 02:08am on 06 Feb 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    When you hear that people at the heart of the climate change think tank used "a trick" to fudge data splicing pieces of it together to make it fit their argument and discarding what doesn't fit, and when you learn that they kept their data and calculations secret all along, they lose all credibility even if their argument turns out to be right. No amount of apologizing can undo the damage they did to their own cause. And instead of coming clean and clearly explainging what their messages to each other meant, they were far more outraged that their secrets had been disclosed to the world. They basically put a stake right through the heart of their thesis to the degree that even those who know nothing about the scientific issues don't trust them anymore. People who are telling the truth do not hide important things that don't fit their story. That is what our jury system is all about. And the public verdict is guilty of fraud. Whether they were right or wrong no longer became the issue, it was whether or not they'd made a credible case and in light of all of the evidence they haven't.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 02:11am on 06 Feb 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #36, infinity wrote:

    The reason there are so few sceptical climatologists is because climatologists tend to understand the science better and don't fall for tricks like the "volcanoes emit more co2 than man" (plimer) or "only 3% of co2 is caused by humans" malarky.

    Or real rubbish like Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035?

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 02:26am on 06 Feb 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #35, xandrani wrote:
    “Funny how the only science that is being attacked is evolution and global warming... “

    'Attacked' is perhaps too strong a word but science is about questioning.
    Solar physics, string theory, big bang, Newton, Einstein, etc. It happens continuously but few scientific debates have sufficient public interest to be noticed.

    Why should climate science be an exemption?

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 02:39am on 06 Feb 2010, infiniti wrote:

    38. RobWansbeck wrote:

    I am not talking about infallibility. No document the size of an IPCC report will be infallible. The difference for me is both the number of errors, ie the overall quality, and whether errors when found are corrected. The IPCC errors will be corrected.

    Whereas "skeptics" like Plimer just keep throwing out far too many of the same fundamentally flawed claims even when people have pointed them out.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 02:50am on 06 Feb 2010, infiniti wrote:

    37. MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    "When you hear that people at the heart of the climate change think tank used "a trick" to fudge data splicing pieces of it together to make it fit their argument and discarding what doesn't fit, and when you learn that they kept their data and calculations secret all along, they lose all credibility even if their argument turns out to be right."

    It's a research center not a think-tank. Big difference. The heartland institute and the CEI are think-tanks. CRU and NASA are not.

    The "trick" was the splicing technique, not what it was used for. The technique was used to produce a single temperature plot. It wasn't about fitting their argument. The data they discarded didn't fit reality. Temperature has risen since the 1960s, so data showing a decline since then is wrong. They discarded that wrong data.

    In any case this was a report 10 years old or so. Graphs since then (eg in the IPCC reports) have not used the same "trick" to splice the data in such a way, but have superimposed the plots instead.

    The allegations simply do not make sense. It's another case of exageration and spinning by skeptics to try and make everything sound more guilty and wrong. Even to the extent that the word "trick" is taken out of context.

    "And instead of coming clean and clearly explainging what their messages to each other meant, they were far more outraged that their secrets had been disclosed to the world."

    They have explained clearly what their messages meant. And to be honest in most cases we figured it out ourselves. The skeptics don't look too deeply, they only seem to glance at the emails and take words out of context to alledge fraud and murder and whatever other allegations they chose to fabricate today.

    "They basically put a stake right through the heart of their thesis to the degree that even those who know nothing about the scientific issues don't trust them anymore."

    If the emails had been read objectively, that wouldn't be the case. It was the skeptic noise machine and their efforts to weild the emails to cause maximumum unjustified damage. History will find enough documentation on the internet to show this.



    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 02:56am on 06 Feb 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Re:-
    12. At 8:47pm on 05 Feb 2010, FergalR wrote:

    That's a joke post, right Colonicus?

    Actually,Not the way I read it.

    Take your latest (and greatest?) contribution :-

    manysummits,
    Great charts from Hansen there. His team's prediction of ocean heat content is way off the mark however and water has a much greater heat capacity than air.
    http://i47.tinypic.com/20kvhwn.png

    Have you bothered to check out that link AND more particularly the NOAA chart it has been derived from?
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    Careful perusal does demonstrate a slight downturn in that period (and in the total graph, there have been many such downturns) but the overall trend is much the same as Hansen's.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 03:15am on 06 Feb 2010, FergalR wrote:

    infinity #33,
    I see your point about the graph, the intention was to show how reality diverged from the models. From the full record you can see that the last time OHC levelled out like this was around the time we were warned of an imminent ice-age (even James Hansen's computer climate model was used by a colleague to predict it).
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    The AGW hypothesis is not strong. I'm not sure why you think that it is. The things it predicts don't come about, while the things it didn't expect are trumpeted as proof of AGW when they are falsification of it. Your inability to face facts and determination to defend the indefensible seems like religious zeal rather than intellectual conviction.

    Xandrani;
    Oil companies stand to make huge profits from carbon trading thanks to the AGW scam. They will extract and sell every last drop of oil they can make money on. If you prefer that it's all burned by inefficient companies in developing countries than by the developed world then there'll be more lovely CO2 to help the plants grow. Check the last link in my post at #20, the list of donors to CRU will tell you how the oil and energy companies really like to spend their money.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 03:16am on 06 Feb 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Re:-
    36. At 01:49am on 06 Feb 2010, infinity wrote:

    RE:-20. FergalR


    Your comment:-

    "It's more likely, given the quality of the list of papers you linked to, that most skeptics can't publish (or don't!) because their arguments don't stand up to the cursory scrutiny of peer review"

    It only takes a short time to review that list to note that although it's described as "peer reviewed" there is very little evidence to support that claim.

    The fact that someone somewhere has bothered to print it doesn't mean it has been "peer reviewed"

    But then I doubt that Fergal read past the headlines
    "500 peer-reviewed papers supporting sceptism ......!"

    Must have sounded like all his birthdays coming at once!

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 04:14am on 06 Feb 2010, Harvey wrote:

    "... globally, January was the warmest on record,..."
    But was that before or after the records had been 'adjusted' to show the warming that 'must' have happened?
    "... the cold snap did not apply to the whole globe or even half the globe, but was much more limited in its extent..."
    Yes, only applied to the UK, Europe, China, Russia, North America... hardly more than 90% of the northern hemisphere really.
    Once the data is known to have been fiddled, anything can be claimed... but not believed, you only get once change at that.

    Gotta laugh...

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 04:15am on 06 Feb 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

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

  • 47. At 04:43am on 06 Feb 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Re:-

    43. At 03:15am on 06 Feb 2010, FergalR wrote:


    infinity #33,
    The AGW hypothesis is not strong. I'm not sure why you think that it is.

    I'm sure Infinity will answer this himself also.

    However, why do you think it isn't?

    Let's put it this way.......there's an old saying.."if something looks too good to be true, it probably is!

    When you published that link to tinypic, didn't it strike you as being "too good to be true?"

    When you published that link to "500 peer reviewed papers.....", didn't that strike you as "too good to be true?"

    When people on this site keep quoting from Lord Monckton and Baron Lawson ,Ian Plimer (A mining geologist), David Bellamy etc etc.while at the same time denigrating the Chairman of the IPCC because he's a Railway Engineer, don't you find that just a tad convenient?

    So, why do you choose to believe one party and denigrate the other? Is it because they write what you want to hear?

    How many of the references from AR4 Working Group1 have you sat down and evaluated?

    If you did, even just a few of them,(they are pretty heavy going, some of them) and with an open mind, you may discover for yourself why Infinity thinks the hypothesis is strong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 04:49am on 06 Feb 2010, Harvey wrote:

    I see that this Southern Hemisphere summer is 'expected' by the experts to be the hottest on record. The raw data of temperatures in New Zealand show no warming at all in the last 150 years, but of course the 'value added' and 'corrected' figures do show warming.

    Unfortunately when NIWA (the NZ climate experts) were pressed to explain the difference between their 'corrected' figures and the raw ones, have eventually explained that sadly they have 'lost' the adjustment schedule that showed why they have adjusted the historical temperatures strong downward so as to show steady warming.

    But no worries, they assure us that there must have been good reasons, we can trust them, any anyway the science is settled.

    Yeah, right!

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 04:51am on 06 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    xandrani #35.

    "Rather odd how Exxon Mobil has bought up the scientists who developed the algae idea.."

    an excellent example to illustrate the flaws of free-marketeering.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 04:52am on 06 Feb 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Re:-
    45. At 04:14am on 06 Feb 2010, Harvey wrote:

    "Yes, only applied to the UK, Europe, China, Russia, North America... hardly more than 90% of the northern hemisphere really."

    You do of course have data at your finger tips for ALL of ALL those areas to justify your claim, I suppose?

    But how about the Southern Hemisphere or don't we count down here? More water than land down here!
    Oh sorry I forgot, these figures have all been contaminated haven't they?

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 05:36am on 06 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    blunderbunny #30.

    "You go on to try and make the point that those that do not agree with your world view are essentially guilty of abusing you. I'm genuinely sorry that you see the world that way."

    are you really of the opinion that manysummits's reference to denial/DAVRO expresses worries about himself?

    having read many of his posts (and co-operated in some small way), I'll give you a quote which characterises his position well, IMO:

    “There is nothing noble in being superior to some other person. The true nobility is in being superior to your previous self.”
    -- Indian Proverb

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 07:17am on 06 Feb 2010, Flatearther wrote:

    A quote from a learned academic who had to keep quiet during his career:

    "I am an 'outed' sceptic but then again I only spent 40 years teaching climatology at degree level and so clearly don't know anything about either the physics of the hypothesis or the data used to validate it".

    How many such scientists are there who can't publish counter views or even speak the truth for fear of it not being a career enhancing move?

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 07:29am on 06 Feb 2010, Robert0117 wrote:

    Why it matters. The various measures the various countries have committed to will soon start to make their costs known. Once climate change measures start to affect economic growth, employment, taxes, and energy costs the non believers will create a backlash. Whether the countries stay the course of fold will depend on how large the backlash is which will largely depend on the level in belief in climate change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 08:04am on 06 Feb 2010, rapidviking wrote:

    Climate change deniers do not accept the science or even some of the more suspect data. The real problem is rising world population creating demands for more food, goods and general improvements in living standards.To satisfy these needs the environment has been subjected to both physical and chemical imbalances that is it has been unable to correct by natural evolution.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 08:29am on 06 Feb 2010, Paul Biggs wrote:

    You're still failing to be objective Richard - you would use the 2003 European heatwave (weather) as evidence of 'global warming' but the cold winter across north America and Europe is dismissed. You can't have it both ways. The fact is that the UK public are sick of the daily dose of climate alarmism based on flawed computer models and 'green' taxes, being told that they can't fly or drive their cars. They've seen that the IPCC and UEA CRU are rotten to the core. They're sick of hypocritical rich celebs and politicians who can afford to pose on the green bandwagon. And if, as some idiots claim, this type of winter is expected due to 'global warming', why didn't they see it coming? No one with any sense is going to believe predictions for 2050 or 2100 when the Met Office can't even predict summer or winter a few weeks ahead. You must be bright enough to work out that CO2 emissions will continue to rise due to the likes of China and India, plus the obvious fact that the UK's less than 2% contribution to global man-man CO2 emissions is therefore increasingly irrelevant. The BBC are still failing to report inconvenient research and news on climate change or 'global warming', or fully report both sides of the story. End the BBC global warming propaganda from Black and Harrabin and be objective!

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 08:34am on 06 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #35 xandrani wrote:

    "Funny how the only science that is being attacked is evolution and global warming..."

    Where on earth do you get that from? I presume you are trying the tawdry rhatorical tactic of tarring climate science sceptics with the brush of Creationism?

    I routionely attack any so-called "science" that simply extrapolates from "data", because that methodology is for the birds. You find it in psychology as well as climate "science", and I routinely attack both as explanatorily worthless, as epistemologically confused, and as riddled with brainless hippie ideology.

    I routinely defend evolutionary theory as the pinnacle of man's scientific acheivements.

    If you ask me, Creationists and AGW-believers are the ones with stiking affinities. They both believe what their revered "preisthood" tell them, for a start. It seems that asking questions is a habit they cannot learn.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 08:51am on 06 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    FergalR #43: wrote: "The AGW hypothesis is not strong. I'm not sure why you think that it is."

    xtragrumpymike2 #47: wrote: "why do you think it isn't?"

    A "strong" hypotheses is one that explains a lot and has clear predictive power so that it can easiliy be tested. Above all, it will pass those tests. In addition, a strong hypothesis has other virtues such as conservatism (i.e. it agrees with much of what we already believe), modesty (it doesn't ask us to believe anything too extravagant or "loopy"), generality (it apples to a wide range of things), simplicity (it doesn't multiply entites beyond necessity), is falsifiable (observations can lead us to reject it), and it suggests fertile new lines of inquiry...

    The AGW hypothesis seems to explain little, cannot be tested in any formal way, and inasmuch as it has been "tested" informally, it has failed the tests. As a religious end-of-the-world scenario, the AGW hypothesis is not conservative, not modest, not general, not simple, not falsifiable, and does not suggest fertile new lines of inquiry.

    So the AGW hypothesis is very weak indeed. That's why I don't believe it. By the way, the issue of strong versus weak hypotheses was discussed in the seventeenth century by scientists sich as Robert Boyle. And a mere 400 years later, climate "scientists" are labouring under the misapprehension that science is a matter of extrapolating from "data"!

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 09:12am on 06 Feb 2010, andy765gtr wrote:

    @54.

    "The real problem is rising world population creating demands for more food, goods and general improvements in living standards."

    its true that is at the core of the problem. climate change is one of its most dangerous symptoms along with habitat destruction, water shortage etc. i suspect we will find it impossible to solve the 'converging crisis' without addressing the disease of overpopulation. at least climate change is merely denied, but not a taboo.

    i do find it rather funny how some deniers claim population explosion is the real problem, while saying climate change is false; while others are the exact opposite. its a pick n mix with you lot. but is obvious we couldnt have grown our astronomical population without the energy from fossil fuels - the two things are interlinked. take fossil energy away, and we are done for. we have no chance of propping up our ridiculous mega population on more meager alternative energy sources. thats if we developed them. and deniers are doing their very best to prevent this. thanks deniers, thats really helpful lol.

    it seems almost everybody is in denial, or plain ignorant about some aspect of the human problem.

    the truth is we need to BOTH rapidly reduce the population, while developing alternative energy. its unlikely we will do either.

    anyway, nice comment mr black. the popular sentiment of the uninformed 'floating voter', based as it is on casual arguments could turn very rapidly against deniers in a few months time. and it seems its true what we knew all along. deniers use bad arguments - or any argument that the pro growth, profit motivated high priests of anti environmental spin can cobble together. anything to convince themselves and their car addicted followers that continuation of their unsustainable lifestyle is justified.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 09:28am on 06 Feb 2010, oldgifford wrote:

    Surely this is the reason why CO2 increases are not the cause of warming since 1850?

    http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html

    New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

    Bristol University Press release issued 9 November 2009
    There was significant variability before there could have been a human contribution. This variability appears to have followed temperature changes, rather than being responsible for them.

    Although there has been an increase during the period of industrial development, the increase has not been uniform. Thus, the period between 1935-45 showed no change. The period since 1972, when the increase has been linear despite an increase of over 45% in emissions, suggests that there are new carbons sinks being established in the ocean and in the terrestrial biosphere to absorb the increases. This behaviour plays havoc with previous predictions of global warming, but it is difficult to know how long the present apparently stable rate of increase will continue.
    New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

    This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.

    The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 09:28am on 06 Feb 2010, Mark Thomas wrote:

    I'm intrigued by the concept that editors need to put "context" across to explain that other areas of the globe are warm when we are cold. Has there ever been such "context" provided by editors when the opposite scenario exits?

    In all the hype about retreating Arctic sea ice (now recovering nicely), was it ever explained that Antarctic sea ice levels have been almost exclusively above the long-term mean throughout the same period?

    Why do you see it as the BBC's role to promote a particular position rather that analyse the myriad revelations of the last few months - e-mails, manipulation of the peer review process, inclusion of false claims, inclusion of non peer-reviewed pressure group reports in IPCC findings, manipulation of temperature data - and assess what their impact on the whole hypothesis is?

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 09:30am on 06 Feb 2010, andy765gtr wrote:

    "How many such scientists are there who can't publish counter views or even speak the truth for fear of it not being a career enhancing move?"

    i expect not many. but you can always dig up a few bonkers contrarians in any scientific discipline. its the evidence they can bring to the table that matters.

    when are you denialists going to accept that climate science, like any science is already self correcting. nothing is stopping any contrarians getting off their backsides if they think theres a problem. for instance, anybody is free to discover that c02 does not behave in the atmosphere as its physical properties dictates. i wont hold my breath.

    its the same old argument with you lot. "i dont like what the science says so the science or scientists are flawed, so lets drag out some non mainstream, controversial scientist to tell us what we want to hear".

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 09:31am on 06 Feb 2010, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Flatearther

    Roger Harrabin is looking for sceptical scientists. Looks like your learned academic should be in touch with him

    regards

    SB

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 09:36am on 06 Feb 2010, TateLyle wrote:

    A typical weasel-worded question from the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, to increase the number of ‘yes’ answers. They asked:

    “”Do you think Global Warming is taking place”"

    Well, even many WUWTers would answer yes to that one. Over what time-scale, chum? And what was causing it, mate?

    The un-biased question should have been:

    “”Do you think Anthropogenic Global Warming is taking place”"

    On second thoughts, this is the British general public. So how about:

    “”Do you think Man-made Global Warming is taking place”"

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 09:46am on 06 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    andy765gtr #58.

    "i do find it rather funny how some deniers claim population explosion is the real problem, while saying climate change is false; while others are the exact opposite."

    not nearly as "funny" as their 'denying' that our governments spend around $1500bn pa on controlling and killing us -- although some might think this an economical form of preventing a "population explosion". haha, how we laughed.

    "the truth is we need to BOTH rapidly reduce the population, while developing alternative energy."

    agree with the need to develop alternatives to oil/gas/nuclear, but a planet governed by actual 'homo sapiens' instead of irrational, god-fearing [insert favourite term of abuse] could easily sustain twice today's numbers, perhaps more -- comfortably.

    but it is easy to ignore bankrupt policies and market models while there's a convenient scapegoat to hand.

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 09:47am on 06 Feb 2010, TateLyle wrote:


    >> 36. infinity wrote:
    >>The reason there are so few sceptical climatologists is because
    >> climatologists tend to understand the science better

    The real reason there are 'so few sceptical climatologists', is because they have a vested interest in towing the party line, so they don't lose their funding.

    Scientific prostitutes, that's what they are.

    .

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 09:48am on 06 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #61 andy765gtr wrote:

    "when are you denialists going to accept that climate science, like any science is already self correcting."

    I agree that science is self-correcting, and I think at the moment we are seeing the slow, painful process of climate science correcting itself.

    However, as very often happens, it is correcting itself outside of academia and similar representatives of the establishment -- peripheral hangers-on to academia such as the BBC, the mainstream media, the leaders of the churches, and Prince Charles.

    The great historian of science Thomas Kuhn observed that establishment figures (especially academics) are usally the last to climb on the bandwagon of a scientific revolution or a new paradigm. To succeed in academia, a scientist has to please the people who are able to promote him, so he mustn't rock the boat too much. As Mill said, academia is the great promoter of mediocrity and "inside the box" thinking.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 09:50am on 06 Feb 2010, minuend wrote:

    GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM - YOU KNOW IT - THEY KNOW IT - EVERYONE KNOWS IT.

    People should give thanks to the work of the NASA, NOAA, CRU-UEA, IPCC, the Met Office, RealClimate, The Guardian (Monbiot et al), the BBC (Harabin et al), Dot Earth, the UN, the UK government, the scientific societies, the scientific journals, Al Gore (and other freeloaders), the WWF, Greenpeace, Oxfam, mountaineering magazines, etc, etc.

    For without their blind zealotry climate science would not be in the mess it is today.

    People can see now that the wheels came off this particular bandwagon a long time ago.

    I WONDER WHAT THE NEXT SCAM WILL BE?

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 09:50am on 06 Feb 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Richard: it looks like you want the climate to be a problem. Can you explain why?

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 09:50am on 06 Feb 2010, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Infinity # 33

    you say 'By adding all these forcings and the uncertainty ranges you get a distribution which is also shown in figure 2.20 and I suspect that is what the overall figure of 90% or so is based on.'

    And therein lies the problem. What you 'suspect' is rammed down our throats as 100% absolute catastrophic certainty. That's why we are sceptical!

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 09:57am on 06 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Semmelweis (who urged his colleagues to sterilize their hands before assisting at births) is often used as an real-life example of someone following the method of hypothesis. The books rarely mention that despite the dramatic fall in deaths from puerperal fever among post-natal women, he was in effect expelled from his job. It seems his colleagues were offended at the suggestion that they wash their hands!

    The idea that science is "self-correcting" is about right, but please do not forget that inasmuch as science textbooks tell the stroy of the discipline, they tend to tell "whig history" -- that everything has been slowly building up to the glorious truths we are in possession of now. Alas, the real history of science always contains struggle on the part of unknowns, attempts by the powers that be to shut disagreeable voices up -- and above all, error stacked upon error. With the occasional notable success, of course.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 09:58am on 06 Feb 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    jr4412 at #3

    You wrote that you were disappointed not to see the poll size.

    If you go to the main story about the poll, a link to a pdf file with the detailed results is available. The article is at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8500443.stm

    There you will also find a link to the poll agency's web-site and another file with even more detailed results, including categories of respondents for different questions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 10:01am on 06 Feb 2010, TateLyle wrote:


    >>58. andy765gtr #58.
    >>"i do find it rather funny how some deniers claim population explosion is the real problem"


    So tell me, Andy, what level of AGW would we have if only 1,000 people lived on the entire planet. Please do tell.


    .

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 10:03am on 06 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #61 andy765gtr wrote:

    "its the same old argument with you lot. "i dont like what the science says so the science or scientists are flawed, so lets drag out some non mainstream, controversial scientist to tell us what we want to hear"."

    I'm always stunned when I read this sort of thing. Are you unaware that science thrives on controversy, that disagreement is its lifeblood?

    Apparently not.

    Instead of appealing to the authority of conformism, you should learn to welcome opposing views. At least, you should if you want to give the vague impression that you have some remote idea of what science is about.

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 10:09am on 06 Feb 2010, Nigel wrote:

    Would it not be better in having an independent climate assessment based on independent scientist? That could take into account the thousands of underwater volcano’s that are excluded from the IPCC reports plus most of the CO2 monitors, as man produces around 3% of all carbon and the earth 97% of carbon, surely even if carbon trading was at full swing the number of extra mouths to feed by 2050 will be 37% more than today so any cuts are a Total waste considering the impact of over population, it seem logical to me like Mr Nutt pulled away from the British labour government because of inadequacy in their ability to understand real science facts! So then government manipulation would be a thing of the passed, if this was funded by the average Joe then the extra plant food could be explained beyond any doubt, the whole weather system would be better understood as many outside unaccountable or unexplained forces that plays its roll from our universe to earth disturbances, the fear injection that’s played so much hype could be put down to the weather? As we should know its unpredictable for more that a couple of days and given its history over the last 6 ice ages, if we the Human race can’t understand nor explain the medieval hot periods or colds then how can we just go around guessing what governments want us to believe that CO2 is dangerous, many want to believe simply because it fits there way of life, sceptics want it proven before more money is wasted, in all honest I want it taken out of the government hands they simply can’t be trusted and the BBC are bias as once what it represented has long since gone.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 10:09am on 06 Feb 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Two things about the poll results intrigue me as an 'outsider' (neither British nor living in the UK).

    One is that the UK is widely seen as one of the most 'climate sceptic' countries in the western world (i.e. closer to the US attitudes, than it is to the Scandinavian, German, etc attitudes), but there would appear to be something of a disconnect between how vocal the sceptical view is communicated and the extent to which the view is shared amongst the population as a whole.

    The second is that there appears to have been no particular event that can be seen to have galvanised a shift in publc opinion in the UK. This can be compared with for example the US, where debate on the energy bills before the house and senate have sharpened both the political and public debates.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 10:14am on 06 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @xandrani #35
    (@RobWansbeck)

    Please. Comparisons to creationism do not help.

    Mainstream science does give climate sceptics a respectable probability of being right (up to 10% in IPCC literature). But mainstream science does not give a 10% probability of creationists being right.

    And I do need to warn you. Yes some climate sceptics spout nonsense science. But some of the sceptics here fully understand the science.

    (PS. Young Earth Creationists also have attacked mainstream physics and geology over radioactive decay (age of geological samples), mainstream physics and astronomy over the speed of light (time to cover intergalactic distances) and mainstream geology (for ignoring Noah's worldwide flood).

    @RobWansbeck #39

    A reminder. The purveyors of climate scepticism nonsense have much higher book sales than Stephen McIntyre.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 10:14am on 06 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @FergalR

    The City middlemen convinced the politicians that deregulation was a good thing, that 1929 couldn't happen again because they would trade away risk.

    What makes you think that debunking global warming will get rid of carbon trading?

    Meanwhile, while you sceptics have been tackling global warming, people on the pro-AGW side of the debate have been campaigning against carbon trading.

    NASA's Jim Hansen.
    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/

    Friends of the Earth
    http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/news/carbon_trading_21807.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 10:14am on 06 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    simon-swede #71.

    thanks, see #15.

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 10:15am on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    FergalR is straight in at No. 1 with his new single:-

    1. I'm guessing 75% of the collapse is from the weather and 25% from the IPCC/climatology lies. Great post Mr. Black.

    Meanwhile, in Australia, this logic has produced a new No.1

    1. Why do birds suddenly drop out of the trees?

    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/dozens-of-native-birds-die-in-was-south-20100108-lys4.html
    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/victoria-fire-authorities-on-standby-20100109-lz70.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 10:17am on 06 Feb 2010, Alrewas wrote:

    Richard

    You seem incredulous that despite the pro-alarmist agenda from the BBC for the last 10 years (something which the BBC Trust is currently investigating) you still have not convinced most of us that AGW is something to worry about.

    Let me remind you that the temperature data from the four main data sets (HadleyCRU, NASA GISS, NOAA and the Met Office) are all currently facing external investigation or are under review. The models that spew out the data are just that models - not reality, hence looking back 15 years they predicted massive temperature rises by now - which has of course not happened. The CRU did not want to release data that was in fact public property - why not? Copenhagen turned into a laughing stock. The IPCC have included hilarious one-liners throughout their reports (errors apparently!!!!). The IPCC Chairman claims that pointing out genuine 'errors' in his Nobel Prizewinning report is 'voodoo science'.

    This combined with the fact that bloggers around the globe are usually the ones that find these problems with the alarmist agenda or are the ones to make the releases public, means that the BBC can no longer control the agenda as it used to.

    Don't please try and blame a little snow. This is just foolish.


    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 10:29am on 06 Feb 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    jr4412 at #78

    Thanks, I saw your 15 after I posted. Sorry.

    While I do not share all your concerns, clearly it has some strengths and weaknesses. Most importantly, though, I do think there is sufficient information presented for anyone interested to have a look and make up their own minds about how robust and useful they find the poll to be.

    In your #19 you also commented that summaries only are presented. On the populus site, I think you can find the questions and responses presented in full. Go to the following and then choose the link to the full report:

    http://www.populus.co.uk/bbc-bbc-poll-on-climate-change-040210.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 10:31am on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Brazenearlybird says at #7:-

    ‘..There is clear evidence of fraud and manipulation of data.
    There is clear evidence of lies being promulgated to achieve political ends. ‘

    Has this ‘clear evidence’ been tested in a court of law and been proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’?

    Or is it just more smear and conjecture by vested (i.e. fossil fuel) interests?

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 10:32am on 06 Feb 2010, Keith Peat wrote:

    Perhaps the sceptics are those that ignore all evidence and history that climate changed massively before mankind and will continue to do so after mankind. In fact if it were not for massive climate change none of us would be here to answer the poll.

    Why ask a no brainer BBC? Why not just ask did climate change prior to mankind yes or no? Simple enough I would have thought.

    So to make up for your failure there is such a poll running at www.notoecotown.com . So far 100% correctly have said yes it did. Any chance of broadcasting that?

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 10:34am on 06 Feb 2010, John wrote:

    In spite of the clear evidence that the public don't buy into AGW and more and more are turning away from it, here we have the BBC's resident climate witch doctors and soothsayers busily quoting Wikipedia and Real Climate to help us all to become indoctrinated into their bizarre little world of conformity and unquestioning conformance.
    Please, just smell the coffee and give us all a break.
    There must be vacancies for door to door selling of "War Cry" or the like. Why not try that?

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 10:39am on 06 Feb 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    The Lexington column (which features politics in the USA) in this week's edtion of the Economist has an article "A refreshing dose of honesty - Maria Cantwell and the politics of global warming".

    Apparently, Senator Cantwell has produced a simpler, more voter-friendly version of cap-and-trade, called “cap-and-dividend”. The Economist concludes:

    "Of all the bills that would put a price on carbon, cap-and-dividend seems the most promising. (A carbon tax would be best of all, but has no chance of passing.) ... The most attractive thing about the bill is that it is honest."

    Worth a read... (sorry, I can't post a link here as access requires a subscription.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 10:46am on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Colonicus 111 says at # 11:-

    ‘….To much weight has wrongly been given to the sceptics and deniers (hate using those words, but you know what they mean) by the media and the balance of communication ability is stacked wildly in their favour.’

    Very much agree with this.

    The problem is, of course, that most of the global commercial media is owned by billionaires as part of their business ‘portfolio’ along with such things as retail and finance.
    They use their media ‘interests’ to boost consumption in their other holdings.
    Of course talk of mankind being responsible for climate change and the solution being to reduce consumption would be in direct conflict to these other business holdings.

    Hence the commercial media (and other groups) have a vested interest in putting out ‘stories’ to confuse the public.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 10:51am on 06 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    simon-swede #81.

    thanks for the link, will read later -- need some coffee first ;)

    (btw, this pdf was not available last night)

    (#75)"..but there would appear to be something of a disconnect between how vocal the sceptical view is communicated and the extent to which the view is shared amongst the population as a whole."

    it is interesting (and illuminating!), in this context, to compare UK media output with, say, German media, or even EuroNews.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 10:55am on 06 Feb 2010, Mikhael wrote:

    I beleive most sincerely that the government noise over climate change is simply an excuse to raise more taxes. Weather is cyclical, so explain the phases from Ice Age to Warm Periods, prior to the industrialisation of mankind.

    It is fair to say that deforestation isn't smart and would contribute to the loss of habitat and decresed recycling of greenhouse CO2, and we have to ask the question about this. Internationally, for every tree removed, there should be another 3 or 4 planted and habitats for endangered species prepared to replace those destroyed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 11:06am on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    More fiction from Alstod at #14 as he says:-

    ‘……The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri. but last night Mr Ramesh effectively marginalized the IPCC chairman even further. ‘

    Is this him being marginalised, alstod?

    ‘…India has firmly backed climate change chief Rajendra Pachauri - who has been under attack over recent scientific errors - at UN-led talks in Delhi.
    PM Manmohan Singh said India had "full confidence" in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its chairman, Dr Pachauri.’

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 11:07am on 06 Feb 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #40, infinity wrote:

    I am not talking about infallibility. No document the size of an IPCC report will be infallible. The difference for me is both the number of errors, ie the overall quality, and whether errors when found are corrected. The IPCC errors will be corrected.

    'Glaciergate' is not one error but a whole catalogue. A thorough examination can be found here:

    http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/02/anatomy-of-ipccs-himalayan-glacier-year-2035-mess/

    Numerous errors were were brought to the attention of the writing team before publication but were ignored.

    The IPCC was aware of errors and could have corrected them before publication but chose not to.

    The IPCC had more than two years following publication to correct the errors but chose not to.

    I can only assume that the increased scrutiny of climate science following 'Climategate' has forced their hand.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 11:08am on 06 Feb 2010, Rustigjongens wrote:

    Interesting poll, the results although not surprising should spur activists to insist on reform within the IPCC and of course CRU.

    To negate the constant negative press that both organisations are currently experincing, would it not be better to remove the discredited head of the IPCC, remove the CRU management team (and install scientists not tarnished by the scandal), ensure that all raw data is published to support any claims made regarding the climate (it is the responsibilty of the claimiant to prove their theory not the sceptic)& finally ensure that peer reviewed means it follows the standards used on other scientific branches.

    If all this was to happen, then I am convinced that people will start to regain their collective trust in organisations like the IPCC and CRU.

    p.s. Is that David Cameron with the huskies?.

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 11:18am on 06 Feb 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    @76, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    A reminder. The purveyors of climate scepticism nonsense have much higher book sales than Stephen McIntyre.


    Sadly this applies to most forms of nonsense. While only 61% of those questioned had heard of the Copenhagen event any old soap wedding would achieve a figure nearer 100%.

    P.S. I hope you're not dissin' the Bish or the Mosh.

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 11:37am on 06 Feb 2010, spectrum wrote:

    Margaret Thatcher appointed John Houghton and Phil Jones to run the CRU, in order to prove that Arthur Scargill, sorry coal was a danger to the planet. They failed so they had to use dirty tactics

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 11:38am on 06 Feb 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Climate will change of its OWN accord.
    Climate is ALSO, ALSO, ALSO, affected by us lot.
    The climate may become rather unpleasant as a result of using cheaper, more available, dirtier alternatives to oil.
    Future climate conditions may not suit our needs and we may have to adapt to cope with them.
    If there is an increase in the use of coal, using old technology to burn it, there will be an increase in the illnesses associated with this.
    As I understand it, CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and prevents heat from escaping our atmosphere, by lengthening the wave lengths. CO2 at greater concentrations becomes 'opaque' to the suns rays preventing a certain amount of the suns rays from getting through, therefor induces cooling effects.
    Whatever happens, our use of 'dirty' technologies will cause acid rain, cause acidification of lakes etc, kill trees, kill wildlife and make pink holes in our stockings. The effects will be generally be harmful to living beings and destructive to the physical environment with increased weathering from acidic rain.
    If some of the CO2 can be harvested to force the remaining shale oil from the ground, then so be it. Meanwhile we should be dragging all of the patents out of the patents office, from bank vaults etc, perusing through them and finding solutions to difficult problems while we still have time.
    I may have come across as a sceptic, but I can see that we are heading for big trouble and if the viruses don't get us then our lack of foresight will when the scramble begins for the last dregs from the pot of black gold.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 11:38am on 06 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Alrewas #80

    Actually I thought there were five main data sets.

    I have not heard that UAH and RSS are under investigation. Although unfortunately UAH and RSS only go back to 1980.

    I was not aware of the Met Office having their own separate data set.

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 11:43am on 06 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Rustigjongens #91

    "Is that David Cameron with the huskies"

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7469483.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 11:49am on 06 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @RobWansbeck #92

    Er, hadn't heard those nicknames before. No, I was referring to the likes of the purveyor of volcano burps. Who has had a number of references in this thread. Including ...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/cold_view_of_rising_scepticism.html#P92048484

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 11:58am on 06 Feb 2010, lee wrote:

    What a surprise, more of the BBC's 'unbiased' reporting, not!

    Why not have an article asking why so many of the population believe in climate change just on the basis of the BBC saying 'it is soooo happening guys'

    I have no idea if it is happening or not, but when all the politicians and the BBC jump on the same bandwagon it raises my suspicions

    when exactly will the BBC approach this subject in an open manner?

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 12:01pm on 06 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To simon-swede:

    Since you are involved directly in the subject of providing scientific advice to governments (I believe?), I would appreciate your view on the IAP - the Interacademy Panel on International Issues.

    I was intrigued to hear Lorna Casselton's words at the recent Royal Society meeting in London:

    "The world now faces challenges on an unprecedented level, which we are unequivocally failing to address." [1]

    This is a refreshing statement, direct and to the point, which happens to coincide with my own view of the world at this time.

    As evidenced by an article in the BBC news today, China and Australia have just signed a massive deal on coal - business as usual prevails.

    As I understand it, the IAP was founded ca 1993, and its first pronouncement to the public was on population - i.e., - too high.

    Now there are 103 countries with national academies of science on board.

    Is the 'UN of Science' too unwieldy - or can it be effective?

    As I see it, I would like to add to the 'Planetary Boundaries' paradigm, and have statements made by say the IAP, on populations capable of being supported under various scenarios:

    1) business as usual
    2) with genetically modified plants and animals
    3) as a hunter/gatherer society
    4) with a depleted ocean fishery
    5) with an economy not based on several crops, wheat, rice, corn etc, but based on foods more natural to the human being.
    6) under various alternative climate change scenarios - including say one in which we switch to a war-time like effort to replace fossil-fuels with alternates...
    7) after a local nuclear war
    8) with a 'go to space' resource aquisition mandate

    etc...

    [1] http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527436.000-the-united-nations-of-science-why-we-need-it.html

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 12:16pm on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Brazenearlybird at #84 carries on with his lifelong intellectual enquiry saying:-

    ‘…here we have the BBC's resident climate witch doctors and soothsayers busily quoting Wikipedia and Real Climate to help us all to become indoctrinated into their bizarre little world of conformity and unquestioning conformance.’

    So refreshing to see such an open mind.
    ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 12:16pm on 06 Feb 2010, Andrew wrote:

    "If the mood really has been changed by a localised spell of cold weather - and that is a theory rather than a conclusion, I know - it shouldn't depress them too much."

    How ironic that warmists are happy to accept something as a 'theory rather than a conclusion' when referring to anything other than the Man Made Climate Change theory.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 12:17pm on 06 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To blunderbunny #30:

    As jr4412 has already alluded to, not to worry, I don't feel abused at all.

    As for the details of denial by the public, they would seem to be highlighted on this very blog.

    Reading over the comments of the contrarian view, I am struck by how accurate that 'Darvo' scenario is played out. (see my #27)

    Now I believe that many of the contrarians on board here, on this weblog, are part of the lobby, or wish they were. So these contrarians are not actually 'in denial,' as they blog to a purpose and an agenda, that of 'business as usual' according to the mandates of the fossil fuel industry, and the military/industrial/financial complex.

    But the tactic is surely to 'strike a chord' with the public, and as the public is very possibly 'in denial,' at least those that are aware there is an issue, the contrarian campaign is faithfully 'reflecting' the public in order to gain sympathy with them - 'one of us'.

    Reading Eric Margolis' "American Raj', I am always taken aback by the tactics which my government, and yours, and that of the United States, and other colonial powers, both past and present, have used, in my name, to destabilze, topple or destroy other countries.

    The tactics of disinfromation are apparently as old as the hills, and have only been sharpened in our so called high civilizations, and in our PR indusrty, which sells junk to a conditioned and thus receptive public.

    A travesty, a clear abuse of power, a crime against humanity, which I would dearly love to see addressed someday.

    In the meantime - the struggle continues.

    Choose your side.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 12:18pm on 06 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To infinity #40:

    Good point !!

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 12:19pm on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    This from Ben Santer:-

    Quote:-

    Santer, says that in the wake of the email thefts, a different kind of (data) mining is currently underway - a form that isn't interested in advancing science in the least.
    "This form of mining seeks to find dirt - to skew true meaning, to distort, to misrepresent, to take out of context. It seeks to destroy the reputations of exceptional scientists - scientists like Professor Phil Jones."

    http://www.desmogblog.com/ben-santer-savages-cru-email-thieves

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 12:22pm on 06 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To andy765gtr #58:

    "the truth is we need to BOTH rapidly reduce the population, while developing alternative energy. its unlikely we will do either."
    -----------

    That is the way it's looking right now.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 12:29pm on 06 Feb 2010, jon112dk wrote:

    I do wish the eco-zealots would understand.

    The message you are trying sell is not just the 'science' You have wrapped it up in politics and social change. You don't just want us to buy into the hockey stick graph. You want us to give up our whole way of life, transfer our remaining wealth to africa and live in poverty. Unsurprisingly, normal people are resistant.

    Change the package.

    People are quite happy to make progress, including a move to new sources of energy. So long as they keep their quality of life. Example: I will not give up my car because it will render me unemployed, but I will happily buy a car powered by non-fossil energy. If CO2 emissions is REALLY your agenda then you should have no problem with that. Why don't you start campaigning to make the car (and the fuel) available to me? I will join you in that campaign. Why should I resist?

    As I say: change the package.

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 12:38pm on 06 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To thinkforyourself #104:

    That's quite the letter by Dr. Santer!

    I urge all to read this letter - it is 'from the heart.'

    Here is an excerpt:

    "They found that, no matter what choices they made in dataset construction, their bottom-line finding - that the surface of our planet is warming - was rock solid. This finding was supported by many other independent lines of evidence, such as the retreat of snow and sea-ice cover, the widespread melting and retreat of glaciers, the rise in sea-level, and the increase in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. All of these independent observations are physically consistent with a warming planet."

    http://www.desmogblog.com/ben-santer-savages-cru-email-thieves

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 12:42pm on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Spectrum at #93 injects a new virus into the Matrix, saying:-

    ‘….Margaret Thatcher appointed John Houghton and Phil Jones to run the CRU, in order to prove that Arthur Scargill, sorry coal was a danger to the planet. They failed so they had to use dirty tactics.’

    Three points:-

    • I’m very glad to see that Spectrum supports workers’ pay and conditions.
    • I’m also very glad that he supports the union movement which has helped to bring ordinary people such a long way since those difficult Victorian times.
    • I’m glad he didn’t approve of Margaret Thatcher’s policies.


    As for his conspiracy theory, this ‘master plan’ must’ve been a very long term stratagem, however, as the Miners’ strike ended in 1985, which by my reckoning is 25 years ago.

    Reminds me of the conspiracy theory, put about by the ‘Right’ in the US, concerning the supposed ‘faking’ of Barack Obama’s birth certificate in 1961 as part of a long term ‘plan’ for when he would be leader of the free world 48 years later.

    Mwahahaha!

    This is bringing on a cliché spasm.....

    ‘You couldn’t make it up.’

    BTW in 1985 the CRU was being run by Tom Wigley.


    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 12:48pm on 06 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To jon112uk # 106:

    "You want us to give up our whole way of life, transfer our remaining wealth to africa and live in poverty. Unsurprisingly, normal people are resistant."
    -----------

    Yes, the public is 'in the early stages of denial.' (my # 27)

    And it is a warming planet with a burgeoning human population 'one step out of the cave' (ghostofsichuan) that is the problem, not the few who are trying to alert an unsuspecting electorate.

    "You tell a pilot the condition of his craft" ("The Right Stuff")

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 12:49pm on 06 Feb 2010, John wrote:

    Thinkforyourself.

    Have you been turned down for "War Cry"?

    Never mind. Keep up the campaigning here. They'll notice you eventually.

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 12:50pm on 06 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @manysummits
    @blunderbunny

    I think that scientists on both sides of the debate have been subjected to unacceptable abuses by other powerful players.

    Where those other powerful players have been other scientists the reason seems to be misunderstanding and over-defensiveness. But other powerful players on both sides of the debate have less noble motives. I suspect the motives of both Big Oil and Carbon Traders.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 12:51pm on 06 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    simon-swede #85.
    (all).

    "Apparently, Senator Cantwell has produced a simpler, more voter-friendly version of cap-and-trade, called “cap-and-dividend”."

    came across this refreshing take on 'cap-and-trade', enjoy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA6FSy6EKrM

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 12:52pm on 06 Feb 2010, ScienceIsNotSettledYet wrote:

    Science is not a consencus, as the author knows.
    One paper can tear down the whole science paradigm. Think about Copernicus, Einstein with his photoelectric phenomena paper, Pasteur discovering microbiological sources of illnesses (not some vapours). And how some "consensus and established science" concept had been killing women giving births up to 19. centure and what happened to Dr. Semmelweis (who had contrarian view to his supervisor, prof. Klein). Dr Lister had more luck (and particularly his patients).

    The very problem with IPCC (or people using its Report Summaries) is the statement “the climate science is settled”, and when the reasons for GW are stated as definitive (being AGW). With such a mind frame the critcicism is low when the statements sources follow the “well known, science-supported truth”; sometime the bell rings and people set-up a red warning flags, but - as the reported in so called Glacier Gate - such a warnings are not followed. If some data contradict the mainstream assumptions and conclusions then they are usually much more scrutinised. How IPCC can overcome this built-in bias (AGW) - this is the real problem here.

    As for the “settled climate science” I refer you to the CERN ongoing experiment:
    http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html
    This points to a very unclear climate science area yet - how clouds are formed. The clouds and water aerosols have a rather large impact on the balance of energy transfer from the Earth surface.

    Prof. Wegman has had published his opinion about the statistical methodology behind the research leading to the infamous HockeyStick results. The opinion says that the statistical methods used are without any scientific statistical support. Have the author of this commentary seen any retraction in this aspect from researchers and from IPCC (the HockeyStick results have been heavily used in IPCC reports)? How such things are handled even now?

    If the climate science is not settled yet then how can we make political and economical decisions about CO2 emisssions (curbing them)? Can Dutch authorities propose to highthen dikes in th ewhole country because IPCC talks about meters of sea rise in relatively short period? Will Dutch spend billions of Euros on rising dikes - and if no such sea level rise even appears? The decision to close Rotterdam sea-surge barrier is made by computers, which use validated and verified short-term prediction codes coupled with measurements - and computer makes the decision to save the money which might be lost due to a premature closing of the barrier. And not billions of euros are involved here.
    We might force people buying insurances against satellites falling off the sky or enforce strong building codes to prevent damages in such cases(probable, because the satellites and meteorites, and even airplanes, do fall off the sky). But what would be the general feeling of public about this?

    And as about the science and IPCC report reviews. It seems that IPCC does not have sufficiently qualified people in charge of final reviews and drafts. Again and again, despite warning by some reviewers, the final people had put into report what followed from their preconceptions (for example, glaciers retreat fast, because we have AGW, so 2035 is OK).

    And as for science - it is very specialised. Not so many specialists can enforce their views on the mainstream climate science. Again you may refer to Prof. Wegman report on the social networks in the climate science. Very few people can define the mainstream science, participting as reviewers, editors, research fund approvers.
    We might suspect that Copernicus would not get today a research grant were the Ptolemeian System today’s mainstream astronomy science.

    The climate varies, and the rate of temperature changes in span of 10-20 years can be quite high. There was colder than today, and warmer than today. Even Medievial Warm Period was at least comparable with today. So we do experience variations in temperature. But to attribute it to antropogenic reasons seems to be premature, when we look at what we know about climate science, about physical processes (clouds, solar, water vapour) and the relaiability of numerical models used in the climate/meteorology work.

    The climate science seems to be not-settled yet, but the financial industry revolving around trading in CO2 seems to be already well organised. Follow the money. Google “TERI EU glaciers fund”
    You will find (surely this is the most urgent research need):
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/glacier-claims-won-grants/story-e6frg6nf-1225823060661

    This seems to be a very simple example how exaggregate claims might spur research funds.

    It would be instructive to read the CERN CLOUD research proposals:
    http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_concept.pdf
    http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_addendum.pdf
    http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_memo.pdf
    It might be also nice to ask EC about reserach proposal from TERI on glaciers’research - how did they support the need for such a research.
    And ask, why there was no such a rush in funding basic research (CLOUD), potentially bringing much more valuable knowledge into climate science then a local and casual study on the movement of glaciers (which do move, obviously).

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 12:52pm on 06 Feb 2010, Nick Hazlewood wrote:

    Snow storms in Washington DC, Floods in Cockermouth Cumbria....Something is going on and going wrong!

    Anyway why can't the weighting be on preserving resources? Surely that is a better way of selling the whole problem to the sceptics. Until the end of the world occurs they'll always be somebody denying what is in front of their eyes!

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 12:54pm on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Sarcastic TateLyle falsifies the data at #72 saying:-

    ‘….So tell me, Andy, what level of AGW would we have if only 1,000 people lived on the entire planet. Please do tell.’

    We have 6.7 billion rising inexorably to 9 billion due to demographic momentum (see Wikipedia).
    We are where we are so your question is a non-question.
    We have to consume less and rapidly phase out all fossil fuels.
    Just like Anthony Watts is doing at his house.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 1:01pm on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Jack Hughes at #68 is falsely sincere asking:-

    ‘Richard: it looks like you want the climate to be a problem. Can you explain why?’

    Can you, Jack, explain to the readers, your evidence base for this obvious smear?

    If you can’t, I would ask that you retract it PDQ.

    You don’t want to be seen as a hypocrite, do you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 1:08pm on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Minuend at #67 cries out:-

    GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A SCAM - YOU KNOW IT - THEY KNOW IT - EVERYONE KNOWS IT.

    People should give thanks to the work of the NASA, NOAA, CRU-UEA, IPCC, the Met Office, RealClimate, The Guardian (Monbiot et al), the BBC (Harabin et al), Dot Earth, the UN, the UK government, the scientific societies, the scientific journals, Al Gore, the WWF, Greenpeace, Oxfam, mountaineering magazines, etc.

    For without their detailed scientific enquiry climate science would not be as well understood as it is today.

    People can see now that the wheels came off the sceptic arguments a long time ago.

    I WONDER WHAT THE NEXT SCAM WILL BE FROM FOSSIL FUEL LOBBYISTS?

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 1:11pm on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    More reasoned insight from Tate Lyle at #65 when he says (of climate scientists):-

    ‘..Scientific prostitutes, that's what they are.’

    This is earth shattering stuff from the sceptics.

    Go on…..

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 1:13pm on 06 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    \\\ Democracy ///

    "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it...(29)

    Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world?" (31)

    - Abraham Lincoln, First Inaurural Address, Monday, March 4, 1861.

    http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
    ---------------------------------------

    When the public becomes aware of the true magnitude of the geophysical problems facing the world, how will we react?

    President Lincoln's words are the very heart of a free people - as free as any of us, collectively gathered, are ever likely to be.

    Will the people ultimately have their say, and their way?

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 1:19pm on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    TateLyle #63 goes overboard to win hearts and minds when he says:-

    ‘….The un-biased question should have been:
    “”Do you think Anthropogenic Global Warming is taking place”"
    On second thoughts, this is the British general public. So how about:
    “”Do you think Man-made Global Warming is taking place”"…..’


    You’ve just alienated 62 million people (75% who were, until now, according to the poll, on your side).

    Now they can see clearly the kind of people ‘sceptics’ really are.

    Do they trust their childrens’ future with this kind of bully boy mentality?

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 1:20pm on 06 Feb 2010, Richard Barker wrote:

    People are right to be sceptical. Even if the basic argument is correct about global warming being man made too many spurious or exaggerated claims make the news. For instance even the Indonesian tsunami was blamed on global warming and people (as diverse as David Bellamy and Jeremy Clarkson) who put alternative views on the cause of Global Warming are vilified. Outside of the scientific community too many of the Global Warming scaremongers have a political agenda. The public are not dupes: they resent being preached to and can see through many of the exaggerations.

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 1:25pm on 06 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @thinkforyourself #117

    Please cross Al Gore off your list.

    Al Gore's nine errors have done immense damage to the AGW side of the debate. He may be responsible for some of the sceptics posting here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills#The_nine_inaccuracies

    ("manbearpig proved it, agw is a lie, lol" http://www.southparkstudios.co.uk/guide/episode/1006/ )

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 1:28pm on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Mark Thomas at #60 says, bafflingly:-

    ‘..In all the hype about retreating Arctic sea ice (now recovering nicely), was it ever explained that Antarctic sea ice levels have been almost exclusively above the long-term mean throughout the same period?’

    Is this the ‘recovering’ Arctic sea ice Mark?
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
    and here:-
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
    Taken from:-
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

    Also see this interesting video from NBC, courtesy of FergalR:-

    ‘Study says Arctic warmest in 2000 years’

    http://www.icue.com/portal/site/iCue/chapter/?cuecard=46537

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 1:37pm on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    oldgifford at #59 is somewhat confused when he says:-

    ‘…Surely this is the reason why CO2 increases are not the cause of warming since 1850?
    New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now….’

    Tell us, oldgifford, what is 50% of 2 billion?
    And what is the same proportion, i.e. 50% of 35 billion

    Yes, it’s a rise in the annual rate of CO2 into the atmosphere of 35/2 =17.5 fold.
    The effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere is shown here:-

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 1:42pm on 06 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @thinkforyourself #117
    @myself #122

    As a clarification. The South Park episode link is an explanation of the origin of sceptic term "manbearpig". And "manbearpig proved it, agw is a lie, lol" is a paraphrase of sceptic quotes. It is not a quote from South Park, which satirises rather than debunks Al Gore.

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 1:52pm on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Rober0117 at #53 says:-

    ‘….Once climate change measures start to affect economic growth, employment, taxes, and energy costs the non believers will create a backlash. Whether the countries stay the course of fold will depend on how large the backlash is which will largely depend on the level in belief in climate change….’

    I thought the bankers had already done a pretty good job?
    Have you seen what’s happened to Greece and Iceland?

    Whether the general public believe or don’t believe in anthropogenic induced climate change is neither here nor there for the Earth. Do we have to ‘believe’ in gravity to keep orbiting the sun? If we stop ‘believing’ does the Earth fly off into space.

    Not believing in something doesn’t guarantee survival. It’s just a thought inside a head. It has no tangible reality unless it’s informed by something external affecting the thinker. This is all a bit Peter Pan.

    For instance, a drunk person thinks he can fight twenty men. A sober person thinks, maybe he can fight one man but shouldn’t as he might get hurt. The difference between the two is the distorted thinking. Not the reality, which hasn’t changed.



    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 2:04pm on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Harvey at #45 gets the facts right when he says:-


    ‘……. globally, January was the warmest on record,..." ‘

    Yes it was Harvey.

    But then he gets his analysis completely wrong, saying:-

    ‘……But was that before or after the records had been 'adjusted' to show the warming that 'must' have happened? "... the cold snap did not apply to the whole globe or even half the globe, but was much more limited in its extent..." Yes, only applied to the UK, Europe, China, Russia, North America... hardly more than 90% of the northern hemisphere really. Once the data is known to have been fiddled, anything can be claimed... but not believed, you only get once change at that. Gotta laugh……..’



    But, Harvey, the data from the AMSU sensor on the AQUA satellite is collated by ‘sceptic’ Dr Roy Spencer.
    Don’t you even believe the ‘sceptics’ now? This is very sad.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/january-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-72-deg-c/


    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 2:05pm on 06 Feb 2010, TateLyle wrote:

    .

    >>Snow storms in Washington DC, Floods in Cockermouth Cumbria....
    >>Something is going on and going wrong!

    Yes, it is called Global Cooling - thats why we have had so much snow this year.

    Or are you a Global Cooling DENIER???


    ,

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 2:08pm on 06 Feb 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    "snowpocalypse" and "snowmageddon" - Old Man Winter seems like Old Man Winter.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8501246.stm

    Why do you alarmists insist on scaremongering about man-made CO2 emissions being "crucial to humanity's future?"

    If it were deadly - we should have seen some kind of effect by now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 2:10pm on 06 Feb 2010, TateLyle wrote:

    .

    >>We have 6.7 billion rising inexorably to 9 billion due to
    >>demographic momentum (see Wikipedia).
    >>We are where we are so your question is a non-question.

    No it is not a non-question.

    The thought experiment - that a world population of just 1,000 people would not produce any AGW - PROVES that population levels are a contributary factor in so-called Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    Thus if you believe in AGW, population level is one major factor that HAS to be taken into account.


    Face the facts, instead of living in a fantasy land.


    .

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 2:16pm on 06 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    TateLyle #128.

    "Or are you a Global Cooling DENIER???"

    between 700 and 900 denier to freezing point, 1500 denier plus if colder.

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 2:17pm on 06 Feb 2010, ScienceIsNotSettledYet wrote:

    Science is not settled yet.
    http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/news/news_shorts/akasofu_4_26_06/written_testimony.php

    Some more recent quotes of his research by JOURNALISTS (so be careful, since it is easy to exaggregte to get a NEWS)
    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=94b7d021-c5da-4e82-b37f-53d338709fb1

    And widely quoted climate scientists cannot prove AGW - since there are many other scientists that produce data showing that there are other factors strongly involved in GW. If any claim on non-human made GW can be dissaproved, then AGW might become THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS, which normally is called a scientific theory (up to now it is rather a hypothesis).

    But the danger with AGW paradigm is (when it turns down to politics and economy):
    1. Rise of biofuel production, which endangers the food production and its prices
    2. Trading schemes in CO2, making CO2 trading commodity, thus endangering many ecosystems (plantations of palms and eucaliptus will replace old forrests, and agriculture fields, increasing water demand in these environments); plus creating a new speculative market
    3. Promoting some practices (capture and storage) and some energy sources heavily based on taxes and subsidies

    One small danger is for sure for independent research and consequences of displaying "contrarian" views.

    This whole discussion is a bit funny, because if we agree on AGW then we should target for zero CO2 emission.
    This can be simply achieved:
    1. Increase the energy prices (carbon-obtained) - 10 times (9 times goes as green tax), from 2011
    2. Impose travel tax - 10 times the ticket price (as above)
    Instead of 10 factor, you could substitute N.

    This in fact is the CO2 Cap & Trade scheme

    I would prefer adaptation to the climate warming/cooling. This has been done by humans for millenias.

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 2:22pm on 06 Feb 2010, TateLyle wrote:

    .

    >>You’ve just alienated 62 million people (75% who
    >>were, until now, according to the poll, on your side).

    And again you are living in a fantasy land. There are many estates around us where NOBODY would know what 'anthropogenic' means.

    I'm afraid we have had 20 years of fantasy education, where politicians have assured us that exam results are rising, while everyone knows they are declining.

    'Lethal' pandemics,** 'rising' education and 'disastrous' AGW are an integral part of the fantasy politics and media that we have endured for 20 years. Everyone knows the government and media are lying to us, but nobody seems prepared to do anything about it. Everyone is hanging onto their jobs, just in case political dissent ands up with a P45.


    Tate



    ** I said swine flu was a non-event as soon as it was announced, it was obvious, but it took the media and government 6 months to catch up. AGW is just taking longer to manifest its illogicality.



    .



    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 2:25pm on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    John_from_Hendon gets spiritual at #22 saying unto us:-

    ‘….and now that the foundation of their argument has crumbled; they are doing immense damage to the aims of the rest of us who care for the planet and its people. They have betrayed the people of this earth through their sloppy science…..’

    Sounds almost…..well….…erm….religious in his fervour

    Now please turn to the twentythird psalm.

    ‘The lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
    He maketh me to lie down in green pastures….’

    You old greenie John.

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 2:31pm on 06 Feb 2010, ScienceIsNotSettledYet wrote:

    Interesting information about Arctic sea ice
    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/10/30/arctic-sea-ice-another-hockey-stick/
    There are references to original data.
    Another:
    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/10/22/a-million-square-miles-of-open-water/
    With reference to:
    Ahlmann, H. W., 1953. “Glacier Variations and Climatic Fluctuations”. Series Three, Bowman Lecture Series, The American Geographical Society, George Grady Press, New York, available from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=1918470

    what can we think about science ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 2:39pm on 06 Feb 2010, TateLyle wrote:

    .

    >>Is this the ‘recovering’ Arctic sea ice Mark?
    >> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg

    No, this is:
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

    And this is the ever-increacing ice levels in the Antarctic:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1978/to:2009/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1978/to:2009/trend
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg


    So why were there not BBC banner headlines, saying "Antarctic Ice Levels Increasing" - read all about it?? Why not eh?? We are being led by the nose by a biased and corrupt system of government and media - powerful and influential organisations who would not recognise the truth if it camped on their doorstep.

    Look at the facts, rather than the fantasy.



    .





    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 2:42pm on 06 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @jr4412 #131
    @TateLyle #128

    "between 700 and 900 denier to freezing point, 1500 denier plus if colder"

    @jr4412 you may need to explain that you are making a pun referencing clothing such as stockings/tights.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_textile_measurement#Denier

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 2:43pm on 06 Feb 2010, TateLyle wrote:


    >>This whole discussion is a bit funny, because if we agree on
    >>AGW then we should target for zero CO2 emission.

    If we really believed in AGW, we would be pushing for 100% nuclear power, and Al Gore would not be buying a condo on the beach.

    Quite plainly, even the architects of AGW don't believe in it.


    .

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 2:43pm on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Texasfrank at #16 asks:-

    ‘…please can you explain to me how you know that it's man-made CO2 that's responsible?..’

    The annual increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since industrialisation began matches the estimated amount being burnt annually as fossil fuels. The oceans absorb 50% and the atmosphere retains 50% of the CO2 which is a long lived GHG.

    The earths atmosphere is 5*10^18 kg, and average molar weight is 29kg, thus the atmosphere has 0.173*10^18 moles of gas in it. 75ppm of that is 1.3 *10^13 mol, which with CO2s molar weight of 44kg, is 5.72*10^14kg.

    In 2006, apparently the global CO2 emissions were 2.84*10^13kg. Thus to produce that 75ppm at 2006 rates would take 20 years.

    Given that the oceans absorb 50% of the emitted CO2, It would thus take about 40 years for the atmospheric concentration to increase by 75ppm. Which turns out to be about right from 1960, given that the increase was somewhat lower in the early ‘60’s.

    In addition, the actual annual emissions now are over 4.0*10^13 kg (40 billion tonnes) so the rate in the atmosphere is increasing even more rapidly.

    Furthermore, it has also been found through air analysis, that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contains carbon 13 and small amounts of carbon 14 from living things. Fossil fuels on the other hand contain almost no C14 as it has long since decayed.

    The thing is, the proportion of C13 in the earth’s atmosphere is increasing, indicating that most of the additional CO2 burden is from the burning of fossil fuels, i.e. the presence of the extra CO2 (a strong greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere is coming from the burning of coal, oil and gas.

    I hope that explains it.

    The effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere is shown here:-

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 2:43pm on 06 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    ScienceIsNotSettledYet #132.

    "This in fact is the CO2 Cap & Trade scheme"

    and will not work because open to misuse.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA6FSy6EKrM

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 2:47pm on 06 Feb 2010, Rustigjongens wrote:

    Thanks JaneBasingstoke for the link.

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 3:02pm on 06 Feb 2010, Bevan Dockery wrote:

    Why do you continue with this charade that the earth is warming because of increased CO2? The global temperature record has NOT moved in lock-step with the measured CO2 abundance. Temperature measurements do not come with little tags on them saying this much is due to AGW and this much to radioactive decay in the earth's rocks and this much from a hot gas blast from outer space and so on. There is simply no mathematical way of knowing what, if any, warming is due to man-made CO2.
    Why was the Urban Heat Island Effect discounted in the earlier mentioned paper? Could it be that it would be an inconvenient truth to state that the cause cannot be sheeted home to CO2 alone. Certainly in Australia the power stations releasing CO2 are generally hundreds of kilometres from the capital cities which exhibit an obvious Urban Heat Island Effect. This is the most prominent, reproducible, measurable instance of man-made warming yet it is ignored, even discounted apparently, in Phil Jones paper on the Chinese data of unknown origin. Experimentation in the real world is the essence of science and temperatures can easily be measured in cities and compared with those in the surrounding countryside. Lets give up playing computer games and tackle the real problems of the explosive growth in world population and the associated environmental problems such as more and more large heat sources from more and more cities springing up across the globe.

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 3:03pm on 06 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke #137.

    "..you may need to explain that you are making a pun.."

    yes, TateLyle does appear to require quite a bit of help.

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 3:36pm on 06 Feb 2010, jazbo wrote:

    I call being sceptical, generally, having a questioning mind. I see aps in knowledge and challene the conclusions reached. Healthy I think?

    Apparently though, according to Gordon Brown I am a "flat earther", and now the head of the IPCC thinks I should rub asbestos in my face every day.

    Absolutely disgusting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 3:40pm on 06 Feb 2010, PETER CLOSE wrote:

    The climate has always changed and there has always been global warming and cooling. The debate should about whether man has any appreciable effect. The CO2 debate is a totally red herring - a fund raiser for the zealots!
    Global warming is driven primarily by heat output from the sun - as related to solar magnetic flux, aka sun spots - together with rotational and orbital anomalies in the earth's trajectory; and secondarily by the H2O cycle. Co2 levels are secondary to other factors and have been much higher than now, both during glaciations and during the highly beneficial interglacial phases [warmings]. The IPCC "hockey stick" graph showing runaway warming since 1 A.D. has airbrushed out [1] the Roman warming 100 B.C. - 450 A.D. during which grapes grew as far north as York [2] the Dark Ages 450 A.D. - 900 A.D. which saw off the Roman and South American civilisations [3] the Medieval warming 900 - 1300 when most of our monastries and cathedrals were built and [4] the Little Ice Age 1300 - 1850. Warming is beneficial; cooling can be catastrophic! Let's get real and condemn this CO2 focused Greenhouse Gas religion to a page on Wikipaedia where it belongs!
    The IPCC is staffed by zealots on a mission - predominantly one of financial benefit from varying sources, claiming that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases - it is not. As a result of naturally driven warming the level of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases increases. CO2 represents about 3% of greenhouse gases and the "human" element of CO2 is less than 3%; the other 97% is merely incidental to global warming. Warmer oceans release CO2. The crux of the matter is what drives warming - not CO2 - and whether it is good or bad.

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 3:52pm on 06 Feb 2010, TateLyle wrote:


    >>131. jr4412 wrote:
    >>"Or are you a Global Cooling DENIER???"
    >>between 700 and 900 denier to freezing point, 1500 denier plus if colder.

    Does that mean that the colder the climate gets, the thicker the Cooling Deniers become??


    .

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 3:52pm on 06 Feb 2010, jazbo wrote:

    Just to turn this on its head and throw it back at the "warmists".

    Say that C02 IS the culprit and we are partly to blame for the current warming (nobody sane would claim all of the change is down to our activities). So we move heaven and earth to stablise and then reduce our levels of C02 output.

    As we all know climate never stands still.

    So what if the temperature keeps on rising as C02 levels drop. What then? Global despair? Schemes to pump C02 into the atmosphere?

    Also, as anyone knows, once the natural cycle peaks, we always head spiraling down into an ice age (Vostock cores as evidence of that).

    So reducing c02 will leave humanity in one of 2 states:

    1. Terrified that they cannot actually stop the warming.
    2. Accelerating the return to the natural cycle which which means an ice age. An ice age would destroy our race quicker than any warming of 2-4 degrees.

    Or stop panicking, stablise things, clean up our act, focus on the real issues like stopping population and coastal habitation growth, and reap the benefits of current and slightly increasing C02 levels, which include higher crop yields and vegetation growth.

    So warmists, including Richard, which is it to be?

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 4:14pm on 06 Feb 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    So a BBC poll shows only 26% of respondents believe in AGW.

    Therefore, why is the BBC only reporting the views of a minority group?

    Balance objective reporting not a chance.

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 4:23pm on 06 Feb 2010, paulcottingham wrote:

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

  • 150. At 4:26pm on 06 Feb 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 145. PETER CLOSE wrote:
    "Global warming is driven primarily by heat output from the sun - as related to solar magnetic flux, aka sun spots - together with rotational and orbital anomalies in the earth's trajectory; and secondarily by the H2O cycle. Co2 levels are secondary to other factors and have been much higher than now, both during glaciations and during the highly beneficial interglacial phases [warmings]."

    Solar output has been flat since the 50s. Earth's temperature has risen. Quite clearly the Sun is not the culprit. co2 levels today are the highest they've been for at least one million years

    "The IPCC "hockey stick" graph showing runaway warming since 1 A.D. has airbrushed out [1] the Roman warming 100 B.C. - 450 A.D. during which grapes grew as far north as York"

    Vineyards are a poor proxy of temperature. Grapes grow as far north as York today and there are more vineyards in Britain today than there were in Medieval and Roman times. The number of vineyards in Britain over time has probably been more affected by religious, political and economic forces than temperature.

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 4:31pm on 06 Feb 2010, Jensen wrote:

    Perhaps the scepticism is coming from people that are sick and tired of being force fed somebody elses point of view.
    When this point of view turns to dust after some brave people stood up against it, the people started to think for themselves - where does this leave those that have most to gain from scare stories? What will be the next big thing?

    So, what will the Government and their mouthpiece - the BBC - do about it now that we have awoken? Re-education for the masses?

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 4:31pm on 06 Feb 2010, infiniti wrote:

    145. PETER CLOSE wrote:

    "Global warming is driven primarily by heat output from the sun"

    Not over the past 30 years it hasn't been. TSI has been flat, sunspots have had a flat trend since the 1950s. A variety of peer reviewed papers on the subject find it hasn't been the primary driver of recent warming.

    "CO2 represents about 3% of greenhouse gases and the "human" element of CO2 is less than 3%; the other 97% is merely incidental to global warming."

    co2 contributes about 10% of the greenhouse effect. The human element of co2 is actually 25% (in other words a quarter of the co2 in the atmosphere today is attributable to human emissions).

    Also co2 does cause warming. This is accepted even by skeptical scientists.

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 4:42pm on 06 Feb 2010, NeilHamp wrote:

    Richard you make the claim that "The cold weather (often claimed - INCORRECTLY ??? - to be a hemisphere-wide phenomenon)"

    Had it escaped your notice that:-

    China has had the coldest weather since 1971.
    Europe and Russia experienced brutal deadly cold and heavy snows.
    Florida had the longest stretch of cold weather in history. Their citrus areas had the worst damage since 1989.
    Washington saw heavy snowstorms in December and now a record breaking storm in early February.
    Korea has had the heaviest snowfall for 70 years

    Yet you try to claim that the UK is the ONLY place experiencing this cold weather.
    The general public see otherwise!
    We don't believe you!
    That is why the scepticism is increasing!

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 4:43pm on 06 Feb 2010, Vukcevic wrote:

    Recorded UK temperatures have oscillated, during last 300 years with a period of about 50+ years. While in the long term winters’ temps have risen (0.4C/century), summers’ have hardly moved (0.05C/century).
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETt.htm
    The bottom half of the graph shows de-trended temp changes (upward trend removed from the data). It is obvious that both summer and winter temperatures show similar natural oscillations (sometime in phase and sometime out of phase – that is another story) plus linear (but different) upward trends, which I think are due to a slow recovery from the Little Ice Age.
    This well corresponds with plenty of the anecdotal evidence of the very cold winters (frozen Thames etc), but very little about unusually cool summers.
    The graph also shows that UK is currently entering the ‘next 50 year’ cooling period.
    If so the government would do well to start concerning itself with reliability of its energy supplies rather than the nebulous CO2 saga. If CO2 indeed contributes to the warming, perhaps its time to build more coal burning power stations, increasing UK’s domestic energy capacity and of course more CO2 the better.
    More temps graphs at: http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GandF.htm

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 4:43pm on 06 Feb 2010, jazbo wrote:

    114. At 12:52pm on 06 Feb 2010, Nick Hazlewood wrote:

    Snow storms in Washington DC, Floods in Cockermouth Cumbria....Something is going on and going wrong!

    So these things did not happen until recently? Flooding and snow have ALWAYS been there. Nothing is going wrong, its just natural events that have always happened.

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 4:45pm on 06 Feb 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 142. Bevan Dockery wrote:

    "Why do you continue with this charade that the earth is warming because of increased CO2? The global temperature record has NOT moved in lock-step with the measured CO2 abundance."

    It's not expected to move in lockstep, anymore than day to day weather moves in lockstep with the seasons. As we head into summer you can still have one week colder than the previous week.

    "Temperature measurements do not come with little tags on them saying this much is due to AGW and this much to radioactive decay in the earth's rocks and this much from a hot gas blast from outer space and so on. There is simply no mathematical way of knowing what, if any, warming is due to man-made CO2."

    It is possible to calculate the effect of different warming or cooling forcings using physics. For example calculations would show the amount of energy added to the climate by radioactive decay of rocks is negliable, so we can rule that one out, wheras the amount of energy added to the climate by doubling co2 is huge (equivalent to a 2% increase in solar output)

    "Why was the Urban Heat Island Effect discounted in the earlier mentioned paper? Could it be that it would be an inconvenient truth to state that the cause cannot be sheeted home to CO2 alone."

    The urban heat island has not been discounted. It's the effect of UHI on the global land surface temperature record that is thought to not be very significant.

    "Certainly in Australia the power stations releasing CO2 are generally hundreds of kilometres from the capital cities which exhibit an obvious Urban Heat Island Effect. This is the most prominent, reproducible, measurable instance of man-made warming yet it is ignored, even discounted apparently, in Phil Jones paper on the Chinese data of unknown origin."

    The satellite record shows similar warming over the past 30 years as the surface record does. The satellite record is not affected by the UHI effect. Furthermore ocean temperatures also show a similar warming over the past 30 years and those too are not affected by UHI.

    And the places on Earth's land surface warming up the fastest are at higher latitudes, not in growing cities. All these lines of evidence suggest the planet has warmed and it has nothing to do with UHI.

    "Experimentation in the real world is the essence of science and temperatures can easily be measured in cities and compared with those in the surrounding countryside."

    This has been done in at least two cases that I know of:

    Peterson 2003 abstract:
    "Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions"

    Stone 2007 abstract:
    "In this study, temperature data from urban and proximate rural stations for 50 large US metropolitan areas are analysed to establish the mean decadal rate of change in urban temperatures, rural temperatures, and heat island intensity over five decades. The results of this analysis find the mean decadal rate of change in the heat island intensity of large US cities between 1951 and 2000 to be 0.05 °C and further show a clear division in temperature trends between cities situated in the northeastern and southern regions of the country"

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 4:51pm on 06 Feb 2010, jazbo wrote:

    "Now I believe that many of the contrarians on board here, on this weblog, are part of the lobby, or wish they were. So these contrarians are not actually 'in denial,' as they blog to a purpose and an agenda, that of 'business as usual' according to the mandates of the fossil fuel industry, and the military/industrial/financial complex."

    What utter, paranoid nonsense. I dont see any coal money or have any affiliation with big industry. I am just looking at whats out there and have found that as of now I DO NOT BELIEVE 100% WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD IS HAPPENING.


    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 4:57pm on 06 Feb 2010, ScienceIsNotSettledYet wrote:

    #150 Infinity

    Try to grow the vine grapes on Iceland or in North Siberia. You can check the hypothesis about grapes as a temperature proxy.

    How big was the population in Brittain in Roman times? So you can check the density of vineyards wrt population size.

    Of course they hadto grow it - if not they would have to import it in rather expensive way.
    Anyway, they grew them in Brittain at that time. Were the wine quality totally wrong then they would import it from Galia or from Rome.

    So, it was not colder themn then it is now. So the climate (temperature) fluctuates not necesseralily due to antrophogenic CO2 contribution only.

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 5:00pm on 06 Feb 2010, franksw wrote:

    You say

    "Having said that, three-quarters of the population still believes global warming is a real phenomenon."


    A skeptic might agree when asked that "Global Warming" is taking place - but that is not the point is it. As far as a skeptic/climate Realists are concerned they are not looking for rising or falling temperature, but rather that the changes are consistent around the norm. However like our ever increasing scientific knowledge, realists have moved on from "settled science" and are questioning your blinkered and blind adherence to the massive negative effect that you believe man-made CO2/plant food has on the the atmosphere.


    Even you admit there seems to be a consensus on this. In spite of wall to wall publicity and up until recently a compliant "on message" MSM, only a declining 25% rump believes that it is caused by mankind.

    And for those with only a passing interest it not just the recent cold snap but also the past several years where the met office has been consistently way out on the warm side for their long range forecasts. And they, as everyone now knows run the computer models that predict a boiling armageddon.

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 5:03pm on 06 Feb 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 136. TateLyle wrote:

    "So why were there not BBC banner headlines, saying "Antarctic Ice Levels Increasing" - read all about it??"

    Because the Antarctic increase is about four times slower than the arctic sea ice increase.

    More importantly the arctic trend is moving towards a state change where the arctic goes from ice covered to ice free in summer, and the knock on effects of that could significantly affect regional weather.

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 5:18pm on 06 Feb 2010, jon112dk wrote:

    09. At 12:48pm on 06 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To jon112uk # 106:

    "You want us to give up our whole way of life, transfer our remaining wealth to africa and live in poverty. Unsurprisingly, normal people are resistant."
    -----------

    Yes, the public is 'in the early stages of denial.'
    ===============================================

    Thanks for being open for once.

    This is not about CO2 it's about a anti-capitalist social agenda some people have had for years - and only recently piggy backed onto 'global warming'.

    If you are genuinely concerned about 'climate change' caused by fossil fuels, why are you so determined to destroy our wealth and quality of life? Why not preserve our quality of life and fuel it with something other than fossil fuels? Thats the fairly obvious answer if 'man made global warming' is the real concern.

    Do you expect ordinary people - with wallets and votes - to fall in line with this shabby con trick to cut their own throats?

    People are smelling a rat and the long expected backlash is begining.

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 5:21pm on 06 Feb 2010, infiniti wrote:

    Re 153. NeilHamp wrote:
    "Richard you make the claim that "The cold weather (often claimed - INCORRECTLY ??? - to be a hemisphere-wide phenomenon)"

    Had it escaped your notice that:-"

    ...

    "Yet you try to claim that the UK is the ONLY place experiencing this cold weather."

    Richard was correct. He didn't say the UK is the only place, he just pointed out that the cold was not northern hemisphere wide - a number of places say warmer than average temperatures while other places were having a cold snap. There's a lot more places in the northern hemisphere than you list.

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 5:27pm on 06 Feb 2010, Edwardes wrote:

    The real surprise is how long it has taken for this sea change in opinion to occur. It has been obvious that malpractice and fudging (to put no finer a point on it) of the data and science has been going on for many long years. The Hockey Stick Graph was a fraudulent artefact devised two decades ago. The IPCC brazenly used it as their centrepiece icon. The attempt to ressurect the Hockey Stick by using a tiny selection (12 trees) of Siberian Tree rings. The illicit splicing of proxies and surface temperature data, the corruption of the peer review process, the sloppy (fraudulent?) propaganda about Himalayan Galciers, Amazon rainforests, spread of diseases, the intimidation of sceptics within the scientific and academic communities, and on and on. The real question we should all be asking is why the BBC has been acting as a blatant propaganda mouthpiece for the so-called 'consensus'. Why the science has been declared as 'settled' when it patently isn't. Just think of the ridiculous Newsnight experiment by Justin Rowlatt with two plastic bottles...and the absurdities of Roger Harrabin et al.

    When the enquiry into the CRU emails is over there should be a public enquiry into the conduct of the BBC and its misuse of taxpayers millions.

    The final dimension that should not be forgotten; a lot was riding on this science. Governments were planning massive new 'carbon' taxes running into trillions on the back of this and huge restructuring of economies around the world were in train. Thank God this has been halted - at least for now. The depressing thing is that all the main political parties are still signed up to this dangerous nonsense.

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 5:33pm on 06 Feb 2010, jazbo wrote:

    139. At 2:43pm on 06 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:



    thinkforyourself:

    A few questions for you, as you seem to have it all neatly packaged up in the classic C02-driven hypothesis. All my questions relate to papers from peer-reviewed scientists.

    1. So you do not think that the NAO is a possible culprit for at least half of the decline in the Arctic ice?

    2. So you do not agree that the Arctic is has been declining in volume since at least 1800?

    3. So you do not agree that there was an upward temperature spike globally from 1920-1940, and a sharp temperature decline in the 1970's, which both run contradictory to the linear growth in C02?

    4. You do not think solar forcing has had any impact at all, despite the past 30 years being a period of high sunspot activity?

    5. You do not find the admission by climate scientists that they are nowhere near certain about the capacity of the oceans to act as C02 sinks, the effects of cloud cover, the effects of water vapour, and the evidence that C02 may have an airborne saturation point at which point it actually acts as a negative forcing on the sun, something to consider?

    6. Do you consider the following contradictory. University of Bern from an Alpine expedition in 2003:

    "work also showed that 1,000-year gaps in the ages of the artifacts corresponded with cold periods when glacial ice would have blocked the pass."

    So basically even thousands of years ago the Alpine passes were periodically clear, but in 2003 it was "unprecedented" due to the hot summer. So is is just the sceptics who are making things up to suit their view?

    Yes or no answers will do....

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 5:36pm on 06 Feb 2010, jazbo wrote:

    "co2 contributes about 10% of the greenhouse effect. The human element of co2 is actually 25% (in other words a quarter of the co2 in the atmosphere today is attributable to human emissions)."

    Incorrect, untrue, totally without foundation. Only 5% of atmoshperic C02 contributions annually are manmade. That is a simple hard fact.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 5:39pm on 06 Feb 2010, ManBearPig4 wrote:

    jon112uk - Change the package? Not possible.

    Libertarians vs. Collectivists - "We seem to be as far apart now as ever and remarkably, the issues are always similar... The freedom and independence of individuals, states' rights and the proper role of government vs. control and authoritarian top-down management. Interesting isn't it?"

    But these words, "freedom,” and "independence," assume that human life is valuable.

    No matter which blog I read the messages are the same; libertarians angry that the media hasn’t covered this and collectivists angry because it is being heard anyway.

    I have seen a pattern emerge. Those who post in anger against the pervasive corruption of AGW "religion" recognize that the human soul has no place in globalists' paradigms.

    Those who post in support of Human-caused Climate Catastrophe are also those who do not believe in the human spirit. Many proponents of AGW consider humans to be the worst of the problem. Many suggest we reduce human population as soon as possible.

    When I defend my country’s founding ideals many historians remind me that our Constitutional Republic was not founded by Christians. But if Franklin and Jefferson, and Washington, and Adams were not evangelical Christians, neither were they merciless and implacable men full of hatred of all things Christian.

    If we humans are no more worthy than chaff to be burned in a cleansing fire, how can we possibly even comprehend applying "freedom and independence" to these lifeforms?
    This attitude is also reflected in the repeated remarks at countless blogs that we’re not very bright, and certainly don’t know what’s good for us.

    All humans have a personal religion they live by, whether they like it or not. To ask collectivists to change the package to respect human dignity, self-determination, right to property and governance based on freedom of thought and personal responsibility is not possible.

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 5:39pm on 06 Feb 2010, infiniti wrote:

    158. ScienceIsNotSettledYet wrote:

    The presence and number of vineyards are a poor proxy of temperature in that they don't constrain the temperature range much, mainly because there are other overriding factors than temperature determining where and how many vineyards are grown over time. For example the dissolution of the monasteries was entirely political yet caused a large drop in vineyards, as many vineyards at the time were in monasteries.


    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 5:43pm on 06 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To jon #161:

    The 'early stage' of denial is quite different from your scenario.

    1) Once anger and fear have subsided, it will become apparent:

    2) That we do need to change our way of life

    3) That the changes can be for the better if we are smart about it.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 5:45pm on 06 Feb 2010, infiniti wrote:

    165. jasonsceptic wrote:

    "Incorrect, untrue, totally without foundation. Only 5% of atmoshperic C02 contributions annually are manmade. That is a simple hard fact."

    5% of co2 contributions are manmade. But 25% of co2 in the atmosphere today is due to those contributions over time.

    The 95% natural contribution is cleaned up by nature. Nature also takes some of our contribution out. The remainder is what accumulates year on year in the atmosphere, which has led to co2 increasing over 35% in the past 200 years.

    As an analogy if humans add £5 to a bank account each year and nature adds £95, we are only contributing 5%. But nature also removes £97 each year - taking it's own addition back out and also taking some of the human addition. So the net increase in the bank account is £3 per year. Over 10 years the bank account would increase by £30. Without the human contribution, it wouldn't have risen at all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 5:48pm on 06 Feb 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #152, infinity wrote:

    “Also co2 does cause warming. This is accepted even by skeptical scientists.”

    I would rather you had said CO2 has the potential to cause warming or perhaps almost certainly does cause warming but that may just be my dislike of absolutes.

    Yes, the overwhelming majority of Skeptics believe in CO2 caused AGW. Even if there were large negative feedbacks there would still have to be some effect for those feedbacks to react against.

    Now that more and more climate data is being put under public scrutiny we may get a more accurate picture of the variations in global temperatures and a better understanding of the factors responsible and their relative scale.

    Personally I am now more sceptical in some areas. I had accepted that the last decade of the 20th century was its warmest but now I am less certain.

    I am less sceptical in other areas. I was sceptical of the Hockey Stick but not any more. I am now convinced that it and its friends have no validity.

    P.S. No 'data are' pedants, please ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 5:54pm on 06 Feb 2010, JackMaxDaniels wrote:

    In the billions of years of the history of this planet there have been many huge and drastic changes in our atmosphere. Many of the catastrophes being volcanic in nature,, quite literally natural.

    But the fact remains that the earth adjusts and rebalances itself.

    It is inconceivable that the life organisms that turn our Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen will somehow fail due to 5% of relatively "new" output by man. A process that began many, many millions of years ago.

    The truth is that there have many many times when Carbon Dioxide and far more potent gases have been belched out into our atmosphere by nature. The life organisms which feed on these elements simply increase their numbers, declining as the resources run out. The whole system eventually comes back into balance where a life cycle is maintained based on available resources.

    The whole basis of this Climate "religion" is quite frankly deluded, arrogant, flawed and patently unscientific. Quite simply is goes against the basic laws of nature, life utilises available resources - there is no other argument of relevance.

    I look forward to a boom in the life inherant in this planet from the release of pent up resources of carbon - THE essential life element on which all life on this planet is based.

    Personally I rejoice in the knowledge that pent up Carbon has been released and a potential future disaster of life on this wonderful planet decreasing has been averted. Quite literally thank god for the industrial revolution.

    Long live life,, long live the carbon cycle.

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 6:25pm on 06 Feb 2010, infiniti wrote:

    "It is inconceivable that the life organisms that turn our Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen will somehow fail due to 5% of relatively "new" output by man. A process that began many, many millions of years ago."

    You better tell the life organisms to work harder then, because they are clearly failing to keep up with our emissions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 6:45pm on 06 Feb 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    For all you Brits/Scots who think that it is only you that got the coldest weather in roughly three decades and in some cases over 100 years....

    The American's are having their fun to

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doJ8-qwXIx8

    ....of course man-made global warming is the biggest problem mankind faces, according to Richard Black understanding the global warming is "crucial to humanity's future"

    Get a life!

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 6:46pm on 06 Feb 2010, John wrote:

    The national media’s continued silence on ClimateGate and increasing revelations of outright fraud and wrong doing at all levels of government, academia and the media itself, tells the truth of the tail. That truth is there's a lot more to this ClimateGate story than what little is being reported. The small (2 to 3 dozen) international cabal of climate scientists could not have possibly gotten to this point without extraordinary funding, political support at virtually all levels of government, especially at the national level and unparalleled cooperation from the national and world media. This wide-spread networked support continues even as we the people puzzle over what this is all about. I ask you, "What are you seeing and hearing from our national media on the subject?" Anything? What are you seeing and hearing from all levels of our government, local and regional newspapers and media outlets? Anything of substance? At all of these levels the chatter has remained remarkably quite on the subject, wouldn't you say? Why? What points and positions are you beginning to hear on the radio and see on the television? This cabal of scientists has an unprecedented level of support given the revelations contained in the emails, documented in the computer software code and elaborated in the associated programmer remarks (REM) within the code. And ---- this has gone on for years, AND continues even in the presence of the most damning evidence one could imagine, or even hope for. Watergate pales in comparison, given the trillions of dollars in carbon offset taxes, cap & trade fees hanging in the balance and the unimaginable political control over people’s lives this all implies. The mainstream media's conspiracy of silence proves the point. Their continued cover-up is as much a part of this crime as the actual scientific fraud. ABC, CBS and NBC are simply co-conspirators exercising their 5th Amendment rights.

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 7:06pm on 06 Feb 2010, ManBearPig4 wrote:

    13 Trillion Green Dollars in pension funds of the BBC, and UK academia.

    Partial list of members at http://www.iigcc.org/membership.aspx


    From UNepfi.org: "The Investor Statement on Catalyzing Investment in a Low-Carbon Economy, 14 January 2010, calls for rapid action on carbon emission limits, energy efficiency, renewable energy, financing mechanisms and other policies. The statement was endorsed by four groups representing more than 190 investors with more than US$ 13 trillion of assets – Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC) and the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI)."

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 7:29pm on 06 Feb 2010, nogthor wrote:

    can someone tell me when 'climate change' has not happened on our amazing planet! as far as i know ever since earth has had an atmosphere the climate has constantly changed and always will!
    I was a little confused about this blog because as a regular reader I presumed Richard Black was a typical lefty, human hating fascist climate activist with a massive climate change axe to grind who was only capable of giving one side of the argument! I was a little suprised to see that he is a real life BBC employed journalist who normally are supposed to give both sides of an argument and then let the readers/viewers decide which is right! Why should I as a TV licence payer pay for richard to write this left wing propaganda?

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 7:31pm on 06 Feb 2010, TateLyle wrote:



    >>2. So you do not agree that the Arctic is has been declining
    >>in volume since at least 1800?


    Come come now. The arctic ice=cap was nearly ice frr in the 1930s, as the pictures of vessels there rove.


    .

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 7:39pm on 06 Feb 2010, ScienceIsNotSettledYet wrote:

    @infinity, 150

    Maybe you can present the number of vineyards in brittain from Roman times until time of king Henry Tudor VIII? so we could see whether the monastery dissolving is the only reason for the vineyard number drop. And during roman times? no monasteries I presume. Vineyards?

    ManBearPig4 shows where the money is today. Some guys say that Enron was also into CO2 trading

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 7:44pm on 06 Feb 2010, TateLyle wrote:



    >>2. So you do not agree that the Arctic is has been declining
    >>in volume since at least 1800?


    Come come now. The arctic ice-cap was nearly ice free in the 1930s and 40s, as the pictures of vessels there prove.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/09/was-2007-arctic-ice-really-a-historic-minimum/


    .

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 7:56pm on 06 Feb 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    There are more people in the world because there is more food in the world. We are like deer in a corn field. We are not that distant from our past.
    The opponents on this page make sweeping statements about refutiation of the science of support. Some are distant leaps in logic and some are conspiracy theorist and this is just one of the examples to them. As some approach being paranoid I would advise, there is a difference between a dishonest government and an oppressive government, something you should hope you do not experience. The vast majority of scientists in the fields support the impact of CO2 toward increasing temperatures. These are numbers. Your side has lesser numbers so it is a bit arrogant to suggest that the majority of scientists are wrong. Your position can only be improved if you can prove that it does not because we have an established position within the community. The attack mentality does not help the cause or discussion. Shouting makes it hard to understand. If the numbers were reversed how would you be responding to the challenge?

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 8:41pm on 06 Feb 2010, Pkthinks wrote:

    @Ricard Black

    I accept Richards Black's desire to support the 'consensus view' but is it not permissible to consider some of the issues without retreating to the warmest corner? The Guardian ha at least accepted scaptical views and the history of CRU science is worth discussing.
    I think in his desire to follow editorial policy Richard is clearly being economical with the facts in this piece

    Evidence for hack? we all know an insider may have done the job, and the Police have been pursuing enquiries along these lines
    Evidence for northern hemisphere having record cold winter? is pretty good, dead cert for North America, Europe, Russia, China, of course there will be exceptions and yes the UAH temp is high but this is down to Ocean temps, see Roy Spencers site the significance is uncertain.

    People dont believe the science is ssettled. Yes we accept the worlds a little warmer in the last 100 years and we accept the CO2 has risen are they cause and effect? well the young people today communicate and dont depend on the BBC or any other organisation so it will be intersting to see how that opinion develops
    I read some of the Ist IPCC report last night( not easily available online) and the feeling was CO2 forcing was not detectable in 1990. Has that much really changed in the last 20 years? other than the hockey stick curve and the politics of global economies?

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 8:42pm on 06 Feb 2010, ScienceIsNotSettledYet wrote:

    #180

    Copernicus was alone
    Semmelweis was alone
    Einstein was alone


    You know what was the mainstream, consensus science then

    When the SCIENCE is decided by CONSENSUS? Opportunistic decisions, usually.

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 9:17pm on 06 Feb 2010, PETER CLOSE wrote:

    the problem I see is not too much CO2 but too much utter bull SH1T

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 9:24pm on 06 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    TateLyle #146.

    touché.



    jon112uk #161.

    "If you are genuinely concerned about 'climate change' caused by fossil fuels, why are you so determined to destroy our wealth and quality of life?"

    read last paragraph #35 then think, plenty more examples like it.



    ManBearPig4 #166.

    "All humans have a personal religion they live by, whether they like it or not. To ask collectivists to change the package to respect human dignity, self-determination, right to property and governance based on freedom of thought and personal responsibility is not possible."

    why ever not? not even if people were educated rather than indoctrinated? please elaborate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 9:26pm on 06 Feb 2010, yertizz wrote:

    Once a spin-doctor, always a spin-doctor......old habits die hard!

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 9:46pm on 06 Feb 2010, theskyisnotfalling wrote:

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

  • 187. At 10:03pm on 06 Feb 2010, Embra wrote:

    Professor Richard Leakey spoke honestly and openly in Edinburgh in September 2009 about Climate Change: his talk is truly thought-provoking. See

    http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/vet/news-events/news/2009-memorial-lecture

    Perhaps it is not surprising that climate change sceptics are increasing in number, but any budding conspiracy theorist would do well to consider Prof Leakey's views.

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 10:12pm on 06 Feb 2010, Veronica wrote:

    I've been struggling to work out why the BBC is holding this rigid line on AGW when more and more of the CRU and IPCC data is being knocked down before their very eyes. Richard Black in particular really cannot believe that there is something wrong with the predictions of Thermageddon that he reports on.

    Now I know why. BBC staff are invested, very literally, in the subject of global warming and the potential for their pension fund to make megabucks out of carbon trading. That explains a lot about what has been going on here.

    http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/1440290/iigcc-calls-urgent-changes-encourage-institutional-investment

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 10:26pm on 06 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To sensiblegrannie #94:

    "I may have come across as a sceptic, but I can see that we are heading for big trouble and if the viruses don't get us then our lack of foresight will when the scramble begins for the last dregs from the pot of black gold." (#94)
    ---------------------

    Hello in Merry Old from Cowboy Country !!!!!!!

    It does my heart good to see you coming along on the science front grannie, if I may be so bold?

    I know it is not your forte - yet - but I have always believed that a good mind is a good mind no matter the endeavor.

    I am coming to understand how difficult all this high powered science is to someone not naturally inclined to science, or not versed in the ways of the scientific method.

    One always stands in a certain place when viewing the world, and that perspective seems to be highly variable, given the multitude of life experiences we human beings experience.

    Before blogging on this site (over a year now), I used to keep up with what interested me in science, and perhaps share it with a few, a very few, like-minded friends.

    Now it seems many of us are called to bear witness in the cause of self-preservation of the species and of our families. Evidence the growing number of talented and straight-shooting contributors to this weblog; ghostofsichuan, thinkforyourself, infinity ...

    I'm sure I am not the only one feeling like an 'old hand.' Jr4412, davblo2 and simon-swede jump to mind.

    Given your obvious talent for discerning the truth, I am posting here a bit of real science in the making.

    "Enter the Solar Dynamics Observatory—"SDO" for short—slated to launch on Feb. 9, 2010, from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida."

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/05feb_sdo.htm
    --------------

    The contrarians will no doubt seize on this new status for our star (variable), and attempt to bend the truth to their own agenda.

    If you will read carefully the entire NASA release linked to above, you are hereby knighted by me as 'honorary scientist' Dame Sensiblegrannie.

    And if that offends any sensibilities for a still monarchial country, I apologize in advance. Surely we need to maintain our sense of humor, for a very wise man from Sichuan once told me:

    "It is always good to smile."

    - Manysummits, on a brilliant Saturday afternoon in Calgary -

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 10:29pm on 06 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    \\\ El Niño Advisory - Feb 4, 2010 ///

    For those with a true interest in the weather and the climate:

    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 10:32pm on 06 Feb 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Pr, media manipulation, tactics of the AGW/IPCC crowd..

    This DENIAR (many agw people would accuse him of this, by just saying this in print) journalist, felt his unease...
    Prior to Copenhagen...

    "The vice-president cleverly lures the viewer into making the calculation that CO2 drove historical climate change by presenting graphs and asking the audience if they fit.


    The movie is product of a political debate - as is the court case
    Well, the graphs do fit - but what Mr Gore fails to mention in the film is that mainstream scientists believe that historically the temperature shifted due to our changing relationship with the Sun, with warmer climes unlocking CO2 from the oceans, which amplified global temperature rise. "


    Who is this deniar...

    Roger Harriban
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7040370.stm

    I ask Roger.

    Take a day off.
    Just pretend for a moment you are new to this, a member of the public that has only really heard about climate change, and possibly it is man made... (some/all?)

    Just have a look at Climate audit (this may be a bit techy for you, no offence, I have 2 science degrees and I find it a bit techy to...)

    Go to somewhere like watts up.. bishop hill.. jo nova.. (actuall all of them)

    Have a read of the story, from the beginning of climategate....
    Imagine, it is a story about a big pharmaceutical company, or a big oil company....

    Read it all with an open mind.

    See how they are days WEEKS ahead of revealingthings, just this last week published, andmany things unpublished in the main stream media.

    Think, how that reflects on tv/press/bbc

    Then, GO and check it, Any source you like, pro, mainstream papers, Telegraph, wall street journal, Times...

    THINK carefully, if any of these people are lying to you. what their motives are... Be an investigative journalist...

    Possibly you may come to a conclusion that AGW theory, was a good theory worth investigating, but that it has been hyped up beyond all physics.. ie contribution (if any?) is an order or 2 of MAGNITUDE less than, the hysteria..

    And the human signature is totally swamped by the muitiple natural cyclical processes. where the cyscles overlap, reinforce, cancel out, to give a highly variable climate over millenia...

    Highest lowest since records began.
    Should raise the question how long the records (30 years for satellite - you should now that this is so insignificant a record, it could not possible show any trend)
    OR worst snow in washington for 90 years, (just means every 90 or years or so you get lots of snow)
    same with flooding ie cockermouth - photo in the papers, it's 'global warming -showing a wall with a flood line on it, showing how hig it got... The editor, totally missing the other floodlines on the same wall, show similar and HIGHER flood lines, in the 19th century...

    Politicians shouting Falt earther, anti science, climate sabatouer, sceptic, just before they fly off in sepearte private jets to a climate conference, with huge entourages. Think of the abuse of power, a rprime minister, minister for climate and energy are showing in trying to close down debate..

    All those things out in the open now about the IPCC, that probably shocked you, it was those people that felt that language was unacceptbale, in the blogs, those 'sceptic' websites that doggedly purused the truth , Steve mcintyre - felt the statistics was wrong on the 'HOCKEY stick' and was RIGHT...(he took years and the abuse!!!)

    Where would the IPCC have been if that had NEVER been used to champion 'global warming'...

    There is a flood line, near the Kenton theatre in Henley on thames, I just walked past it the other day, at waist hight... SHOCKINGLY HIGH. It is so high, that houses in the road closer to the river woiuld be flooded up to the first floor... Of course no living memory of that...

    I could go on..

    You may be shocked that you have been taken in and perpetuated the agw theory, against very many scientists advice, do you still believe the 2500 scientists story, after we know who they are, and the very small group really controlling it... even one of the climategate emails states, just GET the numbers, the media won't count/check phd's or who they are, just get the numbers...

    You HAVE looked at the emails, haven't you.
    Got some IT experts/stisticains to explain the horrors of their data integrity, handling, ect, revealed in HArry_Read_me.txt, and of course the code...
    The rules of the game pdf, explaining how to communicate climate strategy...
    You have looked at Lord monckton's work, Paul COstelloes excellent Climategate analysis.. All which you can read FOR yourself, and check for yourself...

    Initially, this leak was brushed aside with, get the criminal, nothing to see, move along please... I'm sure you are aware, that was how the guilty behaved in the MP's expense LEAK. We would NEVER have known about that except for a WHISTLEBLOWER.

    This is A GOOD NEWS story, we are not about to suffer the terrible effect of the man made diaster scare stories, which you said you felt uncomfortable with..

    The IPCC say 59cm in (or is it 2m) in 90 years.
    Charles says 6 inches in a century.
    Of course some of his subjects ancestors, walked to the UK from France several thousand years ago.. 6 inches a century, would happily explain THE CHANNEL - naturally...

    Is he saying, or the IPCC that ALL NATURAL processes, have stopped, since theindustrial revolution, and will REMAIN stopped?

    This IS GOOD NEWS, we only have to worry anbout real natural disatster, 250,000 killed by a tsunami, 200,000 killed in HAiti, terrible diaster in Burma, and the news moved on, and I feel guilty I cannot even remember the details...

    Has ANY death occured due to man made global warming... NO reputable scientist,weatherman has EVER linked any weather event, to this.. ALL completely within the realms of natural variability.

    So free my children, from the scare stories that polar bears are dying out because of humans (5 fold increase in 50 years, beacause humans STOPPED shooting them), or they are all going to be engulfed ny a tsunami (the copenhagen opening video, sea engulfing a land and a child in seconds! 0.59 or 2.0m in 90 years! remember less than 0.00000025km/h)

    My children are at Infants school, spare them this humans are killing the planet/evil self hating religion, this is JUST a smal group of AGW people, the majority are just like me and want to do the right thing for their childrens future. And I know you will have encountered this smaller group of people for yourself.

    Think of the money that will BE WASTED on carbon trading, carbon offsets, carbon economy, carbon FRAUD, rainforests destroyed to grow bio fuels, lithium mining for those hybrid car batteries, china/india ravaging the environment mining those rare earth metals needed, for the carbon technology solutions.

    Where a tenth of the money, or less, could help address real environmental concerns, address real human poluution, rainforest destruction, save the tiger, EVERYTHING else.

    Give Dr David Bellamy a call.
    Life long passionate, commited environmentalist, now branded A DENIAR. Read his interview, about how when he said he did not believe in AGW, he never worked for the BBC again.

    To quote somone working at CRU, Tim in the Harry_Read_me.txt file, that HARRY, is trying to struggle with the hadcru datasets!

    "...Although I have yet to see any evidence that climate change is a sign of Christ's imminent return, human pollution is clearly another of the birth pangs of creation, as it eagerly awaits being delivered from the bondage of corruption (Romans. 19-22).

    Tim Mitchell works at the Climactic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich, and is a member of South Park Evangelical Church."

    http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-1129-Climate-change-and-the-Christian.htm

    People who go into climate science in the last 20-30 years are taught man made global warming, they are a self selecting group, who in the main, WANT to save the planet, stopp the pollution, all enviable objectives/intentions. It does not prove the science, it just blinkers it...

    Have they been testing the null hypothesis

    ie AGW has a minimal or zero effect, in the overall planetary cycles)
    It was definetly a good idea, a theory worth investigating, but it appears to have been used, latched onto, by people who want it to be true, to acheive theie goals (many varied, and conflicting) no conspiracy required, just human nature...

    So this sceptic (cynic now - after the last 10 weeks)
    Asks you to lock the study door, - this Sunday, next week, if you do not get to read this in time) and just do what I suggest with an open mind...

    Take one day and think:

    What if, what the sceptics are saying -

    (Why not say sceptical scientists - you know there are many, petition project lindzen, plimer, etc, Bishop hill could give you a list of the ones that do not fear - DENIAR).

    Think:
    What IF, everything they are saying is actually true

    (except the really lunatic fringe, counterpointed by the lunatic pro agw believers, who want dams blown up, cities emptied, etc. ie the kind Hanson, controls a satellite dataset, endorses, and won't provide the raw data, despite foi requests)

    Talk to Bishop Hill, watts up, etc - OFF the record, they have reason to mistrust the BBC's intentions.

    I hear you are reaching out to sceptical scientists (but somehow can't find any! - there are many on the record)

    This memeber of public asks you do take one day and see it from my point of view.

    Take that day and do as I suggest.

    Please.

    (it's for MY children, and THIER planet)

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 10:42pm on 06 Feb 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    Mannysummits: Now it seems many of us are called to bear witness in the cause of self-preservation of the species and of our families. Evidence the growing number of talented and straight-shooting contributors to this weblog; ghostofsichuan, thinkforyourself, infinity ...

    Indeed, it is all down to you lot and Richard Black to save our species.

    Thank the lord for you, the BBC and Richard Black ....we are obviously an inch from annihilation and your very wise words have been heeded and will save our species from dying like lemmings off a climate cliff.

    /sarcasm off

    You people are so full of yourselves...

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 10:45pm on 06 Feb 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    And now we have Africagate...

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece

    Can we save our species from thermageddon?

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 11:18pm on 06 Feb 2010, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Shadorne

    there si also a somewhat more detailed report at

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

    more gates than you could shake a stick at

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 11:23pm on 06 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Embra #187.

    thank you very much, excellent lecture, fascinating Q&A's too.



    manysummits.
    (all).

    recommend watching Embra's link.



    Shadorne #192.

    "...we are obviously an inch from annihilation.."

    watch the lecture, particularly ~08:30 through 15:00.

    makes one think, doesn't it. (no sarcasm required)

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 11:47pm on 06 Feb 2010, ManBearPig4 wrote:

    Jr4412

    “why ever not? not even if people were educated rather than indoctrinated? please elaborate.”

    I will not be drawn into a discussion of religion with you, primarily because your brief statement, above, tells me that you presume Christianity “indoctrinates,” while utopianism “educates.”

    An amusing mind picture appears when I see you attempting to “educate” the people of India, just to name one example. Their scathing coverage of this issue shows them to be among the most realistic and sensible of thinkers.

    I will simply state that I listen with gratitude each year to the Gospel message of true peace told each Christmas Eve during the service of Kings College on your own BBC. If we valued that service each day of the year, we would not now be having this discussion.

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 11:53pm on 06 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To Shadorne #192:

    For myself, I am more like Jacques Cousteau - 'an impressario of scientists.'

    If you wish to denigrate, why not go for the true experts in the field - Lord Rees, your Astronomer Royal and president of the Royal Society; James Lovelock, undoubtedly one of the most imaginative scientists alive; James Hansen, in my opinion the very best climatologist alive today; Johan Rockstrom and colleagues, authors of the most far reaching treatise on Limits to Growth thinking, for their "Planetary Boundaries;" Richard Alley and Lonnie Thompson, glaciologists extraordinaire; Owen B. Toon et al, for bringing to our attention the imminent threat of even a 'regional-scale nuclear conflict'; etc...

    One day you or your descendants will say thank you, but that day is not yet here.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 11:57pm on 06 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To jr4412:

    Will do Jr. As soon as I saw the link, I decided to do so. I have three of Richard Leakey's books.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 00:04am on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

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

  • 200. At 00:05am on 07 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    ManBearPig4 #196.

    indoctrination is not exclusively religious, I don't know where I've given you that impression; while it's true that I 'blame' mainstream religions for a lot of the world's ills, I do think that politics, business and the media are implicated too.

    "An amusing mind picture appears when I see you attempting to “educate” the people of India, just to name one example."

    I did? where? reference please.

    "Their scathing coverage of this issue shows them to be among the most realistic and sensible of thinkers."

    wasn't it Ghandi who remarked that 'Western civilisation would be a good idea'? LOL

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 00:09am on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Peter Close has a closed mind at #183.
    Contributes nothing except his ignorance.

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 00:14am on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @BBC
    @Richard Black

    I presume political climate decisions only makes a difference with a small proportion of the pension fund. I also presume that no one involved in journalistic and editorial decisions at the BBC is really aware that the pension fund is political.

    But the sceptics have a point. It is a genuinely significant conflict of interest. Even one penny breaks BBC impartiality rules. Please divest pronto. Please.

    http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/02/bbc-pension-funds-linked-to-climate-policy/

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 00:17am on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Embra at #187 and jr4412 at #195.
    Yes. Brilliant lecture.
    I think Richard Leakey would be quite interested in the Neanderthals posting on here. Maybe he could carbon date them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 00:22am on 07 Feb 2010, ManBearPig4 wrote:

    If you Google the exact phrase: "Professor Richard Leakey" you will find him in this book: Marxism and Environmental Crises by David Layfield.

    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 00:36am on 07 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    ManBearPig4.

    and lest you 'misunderstand' my closing sentence in #200, the thought of 'us' in the west claiming to be civilised is what makes me laugh out loud.

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 00:38am on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Shadorne drones at #193:-
    ‘…And now we have Africagate... Can we save our species from thermageddon?....’

    The Times article refers to a remark from Professor Chris Field about drought in Africa.
    The irony is that Professor Richard Leakey, whose lecture was posted by Embra at #187, lives in Kenya and describes how the climate there is changing faster than anything he has known. Specifically rainfall. You can’t get much more empirical than that.
    BTW: this is what the sceptical Daily Telegraph’s article says about Professor Chris Field in February last year:-

    ‘….Professor Chris Field, the author of a landmark report on climate change, claimed future temperatures "will be beyond anything" previously predicted.
    Speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Chicago, he said greenhouse gases increased far more rapidly than expected between 2000 and 2007.
    "We are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we've considered seriously in climate policy," he said.
    Prof Field said his 2007 report, which predicted temperature rises between 1.98F (1.1C) and 11.52F (6.4C) over the next century, seriously underestimated the scale of the problem.
    And he blamed the unexpected increases on the burgeoning economies of India and China which are burning massive amounts of coal for electric power.
    The warming planet is likely to dry out tropical forests, making them susceptible to wildfires.
    The rising temperatures could also speed up the melting of the permafrost, vastly increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, Prof Field warns….’


    Thanks for the link Shadow yawn.

    Complain about this comment

  • 207. At 00:39am on 07 Feb 2010, edward wrote:

    Hi,

    Whatever polls say or what we think about temporary and localised fluctuations within a long run avarage, it does not matter. Nature has other ideas....

    It has been proven with carbon dating and analysis if deep ice cores that we are already producing more co2 than in the period millions of years ago when the earth had a period of extreme volcanic activity, which blackened the skies, killing 99% of plant life (with that animal life) so reducing the capacity of the biosphere to absorb co2 naturally.

    This in turn caused a massive greenhouse effect which, it as said has been proven with fossil and ice core measurments to have increased the average world temperature by 5 degrees.

    But that's not all, it has also been proven with solid science (no mistakes or 'climategates' here) that this 5 degree rise, in turn caused the gigantic Siberian frozen peat permafrost area to melt over several decades, which released a billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere increasing the world temerature by a further 5 degrees!

    So, a full 10 degree rise in world temerature has actually occured in the past, which according to fossil records, made 99% of all life extinct!

    The scary thing is that even though this process is said to have happenned over a period of several hundred years, mans massive industrailization - which has exploded in size over mostly only over the last 100 years - has, is and will continue to produced more co'2 already to trigger the total melting of the Siberian peat permafrost in a matter of decades, not ceturies.

    It's a little publicised fact that the methane-laden Siberian permafrost is -already starting to melt- and because methane is a much more powerful greenouse gas than co2, it will heat the earth further, causing a runaway greenhouse effect.

    This process is said to be unstoppable now and whatever we do to limit co2, it's already too late, the methane from the melting permafrost on it's own will be enough to raise global temperatures by 5 degrees. It may take decades, but it's happenning.

    So, until armaggeddon, we will have polls reflecting short term opinion based on short term changes to local conditions, which we will have due to such things as El Nino, the sun-spot cycle or just freak weather!

    And I also think that some journalists seem to jump on the anti-greenhouse bandwagon because it makes a good headline grabbing story.

    That coupled with the fact that the general public(many people anyway) are just looking for an excuse not to make any any changes/sacrifices in their lifestyles to combat global warming. They just want to see a reason for doing nothing and the same goes for many politician/those in industry.

    When these people see a (relativly) small error on (one) climate scientists predictions about (one) glacier system, they just sieze on it! When 99% of the science is sound. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater as they say.

    So, I say to all the sceptics out there, read up on what's happened to earths climate over geological time and why. Look at the long term, don't be swayed by (short term) changes to the (localised) weather.

    Science is never going to be perfect, that's the point of science anyway, to change, respond and be open to criticism. Science is done by humans and humans earn't perfect but it's the best we've got.

    Cheers all.


    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 00:41am on 07 Feb 2010, Corbiere46 wrote:

    At 09:28am on 06 Feb 2010, Mark Thomas wrote:
    Why do you see it as the BBC's role to promote a particular position rather that analyse the myriad revelations of the last few months ...

    At 09:50am on 06 Feb 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:
    Richard: it looks like you want the climate to be a problem. Can you explain why?

    At 11:58am on 06 Feb 2010, lee wrote:
    when exactly will the BBC approach this subject in an open manner?

    At 5:27pm on 06 Feb 2010, Edwardes wrote:
    The real question we should all be asking is why the BBC has been acting as a blatant propaganda mouthpiece for the so-called 'consensus'. Why the science has been declared as 'settled' when it patently isn't........ When the enquiry into the CRU emails is over there should be a public enquiry into the conduct of the BBC and its misuse of taxpayers millions.


    Veronica, above, went some of the way to explainig why Harrabin and Black give only one side of the question. To give more detail, and I'm sure Andrew30 who posts on climate blogs with an interest in "follow the money' info, won't mind me quoting him here:

    Quote:
    I think that you may have missed something about position of the BBC on AGW.

    From: http://www.iigcc.org/index.aspx

    “The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors. The group’s objective is to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4trillion. A full list of members is available on the membership page”

    Remember that phrase: “use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors”

    From: http://www.iigcc.org/membership.aspx

    Members of the IIGCC includes: BBC Pension Trust
    To be a bit more specific as to the BBC involvement:

    From: http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/1440290/iigcc-calls-urgent-changes-encourage-institutional-investment


    Professional Pensions | 19 May 2009 | 01:00
    Categories: Investment

    Carbon markets need urgent changes in order to encourage institutional investment and the development of a low-carbon economy, the Institutional Investor Group on Climate Change says.
    The group is calling for strong price signals and caps on carbon emissions that will encourage scarcity and demand.

    IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe said: “The credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes.”


    Did you catch that: “IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe…”

    The BBC is the Chair of this Carbon Trading driven investment scheme.
    Recall: “use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors”

    So the IIGCC chairman (the BBC) are “calling for strong price signals and caps on carbon emissions THAT WILL ENCOURAGE SCARCITY AND DEMAND”

    And the BBC is using “their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors” to achieve the goals of the group. [end quote]




    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 00:45am on 07 Feb 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    manysummits at toasty posty 189,
    Thanks for the link and for the compliment. It looks as if we could all become toasted marshmallow if the sun did throw a wobbly. We are far too dependent on interconnectivity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 00:53am on 07 Feb 2010, TeaPot562 wrote:

    Consider the Viking colony in southern Greenland, able to grow enough crops which, along with fishing, could feed itself from roughly 1000 A.D. until a succession of shorter, cooler summers forced abandoning the colony circa 1420 A.D. This coincides with the Medieval Warming period, and has been well documented. The AGW enthusiasts simply ignore data that does not fit their preconceived notions.
    The earth has a finite supply of fossil fuels - conservation is good; reduction of water pollution and air pollution is also good. CO2 is NOT a pollutant, despite the rulings of the EPA in the US government. Plants need CO2 to grow; we humans emit CO2 when we breathe.
    Those who claim the most recent decade was "the warmest ever" are really saying the warmest since temperature recordings have become global -- perhaps in the last fifty years.
    Climate change would continue to happen whether humans are on the planet's surface or not. If the threat of ten billion people in the near future is a major concern, provide solar-battery powered TVs to all the people in countries where the birth rate is above replacement (This excludes most of Europe, anglophone North America and Quebec province.)
    TeaPot562

    Complain about this comment

  • 211. At 01:06am on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Barry Woods at #191 says, at great length (and I did read it all Barry):-

    ‘……What if, what the sceptics are saying…….Think:
    What IF, everything they are saying is actually true…’

    But that is not what the science is saying, Barry. A lengthy diatribe doesn’t change that. Watch these videos please:-

    Richard B Alley at the American Geophysical Union, here:-
    http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

    Richard Leakey in Edinburgh here:-
    http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/vet/news-events/news/2009-memorial-lecture

    PS we all have children and families and we are all concerned about them. That is why this issue, despite what you want to believe, is not going to go away.
    I find the ‘sceptics’ position to be rooted in denial, dogma and general selfishness that is putting the well being of these future generations at risk.
    So you will have to excuse me for not finding your tired old rhetoric not the least bit helpful.

    Complain about this comment

  • 212. At 01:10am on 07 Feb 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    #182:

    Many have stood alone. Those your mention were proven right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 01:12am on 07 Feb 2010, Corbiere46 wrote:

    There is a great deal of ignorance of the sceptical position on here, not surprising if these BBC Environment blogs are where commenters get their 'information' on climate change.

    The BBC's Roger Harrabin has only the following links posted on his blog site:
    RealClimate; Copenhagen Consensus; Climatic Research Unit; and the IPCC website
    All of these are dedicated to pushing the hypothesis of Man-Made Global Warning, and were created for that purpose. They are NOT objective unbiased sites where the public can go for an overview, or to hear the scientific argument for alternative views.

    Why does the BBC only post links to such biased sites, and not to those publishing papers which question the scientitic basis of AGW, liek climateaudit or wattsupwiththat?

    It's pointless going to the IPCC to learn about the science. The IPCC is/was a reviewing committee set up for the sole purpose of driving intergovernmental policy to "manage man-made global warning'. It was not set up to question the 'science', indeed its very premise and 'mission statement' denies the possibility of an alternative reality.

    The three blogs linked by the BBC are AGW pressure groups, manned by the CRU/NASA consensus, where sceptical voices are routinely mocked if non-scientists, or posts deleted or severely edited if posted by those working in climate science but not suscribing to AGW.

    There are many cases, not just one or two, of the policy committe producing IPCC AR4 (the report on which the UN, the EU and govenrments worldwide have based their draconian tax-hungry policies) ignoring and even falsifying dissenting (usually peer-reviewed) scientists. Authoritative research is jettisoned, often in favour of articles by NGO activists from eg WWF or Greenpeace.

    Many distinguished scientists have resigned from the IPCC as a result over the years (eg google for Cristopher Landsea resignation letter); others have merely complained (google for Dr Jack Ives and glaciergate); and almost all have been side-lined and hounded out of academia. The degree to which the established peer review process has been rail-roaded is staggering. The gatekeeping of the little group at HadleyCRU/NASA/GISS - and they are a very small group - is draconian, as recent events have shown.

    Even Wikipedia has been surborned to the AGW purpose: the climate editor William Connolly ruthlessly deletes any dissenting voice, refs to any dissenting research and papers, has re-written or written well over 5000 wiki articles on climate, and has so far blocked - yes blocked - over 2000 contributors, many of them scientists in relevant disciplines. Some have not even been able to correct falehoods on pages referring to themselves or their work.

    This is the 'climate' in which dissenters and sceptics have had to work.
    This is NOT a safe basis on which to erect a huge edifice of worldwide tax and regulation.

    Thank God we have wattsupwiththat to act as a clearing house for a broad spectrum of views, news and papers, and for the exchange of information.

    You won't get that here. The bias - many would say misinformation - in BBC coverage of this issue is a national scandal, which alone makes the BBC unworthy of the taxpayers' fee. Just as well it's being brought to the attention of the BBC Trust

    Complain about this comment

  • 214. At 01:24am on 07 Feb 2010, ManBearPig4 wrote:

    “Perhaps one day the children we shall share with Gaia will peacefully co-operate with the great mammals of the ocean and use whale power to travel faster and faster in the mind, as horse power once carried us over the ground.”
    Gaia A new look at life on Earth, by James Lovelock (1979) http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/gaia.htm

    Complain about this comment

  • 215. At 01:45am on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Corbiere46

    "Why does the BBC only post links to such biased sites, and not to those publishing papers which question the scientitic basis of AGW, liek climateaudit or wattsupwiththat?"

    Actually they do provide links to both Climate Audit and Watts Up With That.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 216. At 01:47am on 07 Feb 2010, ManBearPig4 wrote:

    Manysummit's Johan Rockstrom, cited in “A Failed System: The World Crisis of Capitalist Globalization and its Impact on China” by John Bellamy Foster. http://www.oid-ido.org/article.php3?id_article=808

    Complain about this comment

  • 217. At 01:49am on 07 Feb 2010, ManBearPig4 wrote:

    And to conclude checking manysummit’s list of references, because I see another pattern forming here, I will finish with this link, where all three of the other scientists are mentioned in ONE SENTENCE.

    (Note also the best hockey stick graph you are ever likely to see.)

    http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/12/world-doesnt-end-in-2100.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 218. At 02:06am on 07 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    JackMaxDaniels #171.

    "In the billions of years of the history of this planet there have been many huge and drastic changes in our atmosphere. Many of the catastrophes being volcanic in nature,, quite literally natural."

    correct.

    "But the fact remains that the earth adjusts and rebalances itself."

    correct.

    "It is inconceivable that the life organisms that turn our Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen will somehow fail due to 5% of relatively "new" output by man. A process that began many, many millions of years ago."

    correct.

    "The truth is that there have many many times when Carbon Dioxide and far more potent gases have been belched out into our atmosphere by nature. The life organisms which feed on these elements simply increase their numbers, declining as the resources run out. The whole system eventually comes back into balance where a life cycle is maintained based on available resources."

    still correct, good.

    "The whole basis of this Climate "religion" is quite frankly deluded, arrogant, flawed and patently unscientific. Quite simply is goes against the basic laws of nature, life utilises available resources - there is no other argument of relevance."

    well, the worries are driven by self-interest (ie human point of view), so while you're still on the right track, be charitable. ;)

    "I look forward to a boom in the life inherant in this planet from the release of pent up resources of carbon - THE essential life element on which all life on this planet is based."

    a boom of new life forms perhaps, current occupants of Earth increasingly find their habitats diminished/removed through human activities, too fast for evolution to keep pace; a good number of species are already nearing the threshold of extinction, some have already 'crossed the rubycon'.

    "Personally I rejoice in the knowledge that pent up Carbon has been released and a potential future disaster of life on this wonderful planet decreasing has been averted. Quite literally thank god for the industrial revolution."

    yes, life WILL go on, albeit without many of the currently existing forms, perhaps even without humans. I'm mystified though why you thank your god for industrialisation; is it because it enables us to destroy habitats on an unprecedented scale? or is it because you revel in taking human and other creature's lives using high tech? or perhaps because it helps us to remove competing life forms? or -- my guess -- because it enables you to lead a comfortable, sheltered life (and never mind anyone or anything else)?

    Complain about this comment

  • 219. At 02:11am on 07 Feb 2010, ManBearPig4 wrote:

    Regarding James Lovelock:

    Gaia A new look at life on Earth, by James Lovelock (1979) http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/gaia.htm

    Mr. Lovelock hopes that one day we will share with Gaia, peacefully cooperating with and using whales to travel as we once did with horses.

    Complain about this comment

  • 220. At 02:12am on 07 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    TeaPot562 #210.

    "If the threat of ten billion people in the near future is a major concern, provide solar-battery powered TVs to all the people in countries where the birth rate is above replacement (This excludes most of Europe, anglophone North America and Quebec province.)"

    people in the 'excluded' zones do not have lower birth rates because they're too busy watching TV; people elsewhere usually have more children because of (a) poverty, ie children are an 'insurance' for old age, and (b) higher child mortality rates, ie you need six or eight children if you want one or two to survive to maturity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 221. At 02:12am on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    I, as a pro-AGW debater, am a little ashamed. I have not always been supportive of Phil Jones. Now I read this.

    "THE scientist at the centre of the “climategate” email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide."

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece

    Complain about this comment

  • 222. At 02:33am on 07 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    ManBearPig4 #217, #196.

    "..I see another pattern forming here.."

    cannot comment on the things you see but will say that when asked to support your assertion (#196)"..when I see you attempting to “educate” the people of India, just to name one example" with references, you fail.

    Complain about this comment

  • 223. At 02:41am on 07 Feb 2010, ManBearPig4 wrote:

    For Barry Woods - you were directed to a video of Richard B Alley at the American Geophysical Union.

    I might further direct you to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

    It comes back full circle to the Hockey Stick.

    Complain about this comment

  • 224. At 02:43am on 07 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To JaneBasingstoke #221:

    Have you read the 'Santer Letter,' provided courtesy of thinkforyourself #104:

    http://www.desmogblog.com/ben-santer-savages-cru-email-thieves

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 225. At 02:51am on 07 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    That's really too bad hearing about Dr. Jones reaction to the taunts and insults. James Hansen has talked of this 'backlash' affecting the staff at GISS and NOAA.

    The world of high science is extremely competitive, from University on up. It is no wonder that that top scientists are subject to the same neuroses which affect virtually all civilized people.

    That being said, I hope Dr. Jones gets a hold of himself and comes back fighting.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 226. At 03:27am on 07 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    Climate science is by nature multi-disciplinary.

    Cutting edge atmospheric physics and chemistry are just the beginning. Then there's astronomy and astrophysics (Milankovitch/planetary science) and all of the myriad specialities, glaciology, dust and pollen counts and dendrochronology, deep sea sediment cores, geology, geophysics, radiometric dating, meteorology and the global land/sea temperature record, satellite observations, solar astronomy and physics etc...

    And underlying all, the paleoclimatic record and all of its subdisciplines.

    And after that, one is asked, or required by conscience, because of the far-reaching consequences which modern studies of climate have revealed, to enter the arena of politics and policy, and the entirely different sub-set of human beings who occupy that niche.

    The contrarians on this blog, with few exceptions, have no real idea of how truly ignorant you are of science and its ways, and of how obvious this is.

    Those who do have this science knowledge and argue vehemently against the science are by definition contrarian at the least, and in all probability drumming to the beat of big money, plain and simply said.

    That is my opinion, and I have seen a lot of the world, in science and outside.

    The IPCC is by nature and inclination ultra-conservative and concensus oriented, despite the obvious flaws in a few of its arguments.

    I wish this produced the best cutting edge science, but by definition it does not, cannot. We sacrifice the best for the least common denominator, because apparently this is required.

    We'll see about that.

    - Manysummits -


    Complain about this comment

  • 227. At 05:23am on 07 Feb 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    Thinkforyourself: "I find the ‘sceptics’ position to be rooted in denial, dogma and general selfishness that is putting the well being of these future generations at risk."

    Indeed, you are right, my dogma is rooted in Atmospheric Physics, which is what I studied in college. That is what a higher education in pure Physics does for you.

    Where did you, manysummits and the rest of the "end-of-the-world as we know it" clan get your education?



    Complain about this comment

  • 228. At 07:01am on 07 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Shadorne #129.

    "..man-made CO2 emissions ... we should have seen some kind of effect by now."

    depends on your definiton of deadly, I suppose, will knocking out key part of the food chain qualify?

    while elevated CO2 levels are good for plants, it's not good news if you live in a shell (plus one ref on corals); apparently, largest effects found in estuaries.

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005661

    http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/953.htm

    www.int-res.com/articles/ab2009/5/b005p041.pdf

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=20972

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N41/B3.php

    Complain about this comment

  • 229. At 07:29am on 07 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Nick Hazlewood #114.

    "Anyway why can't the weighting be on preserving resources? Surely that is a better way of selling the whole problem to the sceptics."

    good thinking, unfortunately incompatible with the way business is being done.

    all the way from the importance of image to actual, gratuitous wastage, like:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/supermarket-waste-hits-new-high-780513.html

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1460183,00.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 230. At 09:24am on 07 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    Whilst not condoning any attacks on Jones or Hansens colleagues, I find it a little rich that the same people who attacked sceptics and called for "Nuremberg style" trials for dissenters are now saying it's not fair

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 231. At 09:34am on 07 Feb 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @jr4412 #229 and Nick Hazlewood #114.

    "Anyway why can't the weighting be on preserving resources? Surely that is a better way of selling the whole problem to the sceptics."

    Actually, this is a debate that I've had quite often with friends that are a little bit greener than me - it's certainly something that, as a sceptic, I've considered. You lot might be on safer ground with this and at least you'd be playing to traditional green values and concepts.

    Still, far be it from me to give advice to warmists.........

    Complain about this comment

  • 232. At 09:36am on 07 Feb 2010, ScienceIsNotSettledYet wrote:

    #221

    Please read the comments under the article also
    Here you will need less sifting through them
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017905.ece

    Prof. Jones offers his view point, about sabotage. The 200 requests - in other reports - were letters asking about confidenta;lity agreements. As a basis for refusal of delivery of data.

    It is scientific and political ridicule.
    Very important subject, basis for global policy - and no proper data archieving? No proper procedures to release data? Because other scientist might "misuse them"? - so he would show the truth about them, in open, how they have manipulated the data. You do not show the data and methods it 2 cases: either it is a sham or it has huge commercial value.
    When it boils down to science, people share data and knowledge. When they perceive other scientists as competitors for funding ($$$), they might prefere do not share.
    So money+ego or science? In so important subject, affecting nations, one would expect science and openess. You could read "Cargo Cult science"by late prof. Feynmann.

    I agree, that it hurts when some mails show what we are in more private sorrundings.

    Complain about this comment

  • 233. At 09:37am on 07 Feb 2010, Skashion wrote:

    It's hard not to be sceptical when you look at evidence such as:

    Solomon et al., Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (2007), pp. 201-3.

    The areas in which there is the highest Level Of Scientific Understanding (LOSU) are those with the highest anthropogenic positive forcings whilst those with the lowest LOSU are the highest anthropogenic negative forcings. This could be coincidental or it could be data manipulation. However, what it surely is, is uncertain science. Until all the variables have a similar LOSU there are hardly any claims which can be made with any factual basis whatsoever. We simply don't know enough yet. There are still very large margins of error which need to be drastically reduced before there can be talk of genuine certainty.

    Complain about this comment

  • 234. At 09:54am on 07 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    blunderbunny #231.

    :-)

    wonder what you'd make of Prof Leakey's lecture? (#187)

    Complain about this comment

  • 235. At 10:00am on 07 Feb 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Manysummits

    "The contrarians on this blog, with few exceptions, have no real idea of how truly ignorant you are of science and its ways, and of how obvious this is."

    Sorry mate, but I think my grasp of science is a tad beyond yours and I think you'll find that most sceptics are very highly educated - obviously, I would say that wouldn't I?

    Seriously, though, if that's all that you guys have got left in the locker then you really are in trouble.

    You'd do well to look further into the basis of dendrochronology/dendroclimatology and what it may or may not mean for your cause.

    Certainly, recent work does not support your lot's (Mann et al) current interpretation of it:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8311000/8311373.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 236. At 10:22am on 07 Feb 2010, rossglory wrote:

    cross-party consensus?

    when i asked my tory mp, the shadow welsh minister cheryl gillan, whether she would vote for the climate change bill she just posted back some articles by the arch-contrarian lawson and a belligerent glaswegian (whose name i don;t recall) with similar views.

    i don;t think she's necessarily in a minority in the tory party.

    Complain about this comment

  • 237. At 10:24am on 07 Feb 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    The same Phil Jones that speaks of the 'cheering news' of hearing of a sceptics death - (John L Daly) climategate emails

    'considered suicide' they are good at the pr/media manipulation, he and the his CRU colleages will be checking into 'rehab' for a suitable 5 days of atonement, and then they will go back to work as usual...

    See all this, has turned me from a sceptic into a cynic..

    If you read the times articles comments section, online, it doesn't look like the public are buying it either.

    Complain about this comment

  • 238. At 10:31am on 07 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    blunderbunny #231, #235.


    "warmists", "your lot's"

    after yet another all-nighter (and I am getting too old for that sort of thing) I'm tired and not really in the mood 'to snap', however:

    it has only just dawned on me that you're dishing out labels and #231 had 'barbs'; I've stated before -- a number of times -- (A)GW isn't what I obsess about, so 'warmist' is the wrong category.

    on the whole (from memory) I do not put labels like 'sceptic' or whatever on people and would appreciate it if you'd do likewise.

    anti-ism!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 239. At 10:32am on 07 Feb 2010, jon112dk wrote:

    168. At 5:43pm on 06 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To jon #161:

    The 'early stage' of denial is quite different from your scenario.
    ===============================

    We are well past the early stage - this is a mass revolt.

    The true believers in MMGW are now in the minority.

    Some time ago, by enough opression and control of information a powerful coalition of the state, scientists, ecozealots and the media could have forced this through. But times are changing.

    People no longer just accept like sheep anything you tell them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 240. At 10:50am on 07 Feb 2010, Dempster wrote:

    239. At 10:32am on 07 Feb 2010, jon112uk wrote:
    'People no longer just accept like sheep anything you tell them'

    Well I did.

    I accepted Richard Black’s position on AGW.

    Why would he lie?

    To what end, where’s the motive?

    Complain about this comment

  • 241. At 10:53am on 07 Feb 2010, jon112dk wrote:

    184. At 9:24pm on 06 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:
    "Rather odd how Exxon Mobil has bought up the scientists who developed the algae idea... no doubt they will stall the research!"
    ======================

    My guess is that exon mobil will be steaming ahead to bring ANYTHING which will make a profit to market. A fuel that could be grown in the sea just off the US coast (for peanuts compared with some of the places they now have to drill for oil) and then could be sold at a premium price to gullible/trendy Prius types??? American corporations responded instantly and aggressively to Bush's call for bio-fuel, then got hammered by the ecozealots.

    If you want examples of blocking non-fossil energy look to the main beneficiaries of the current MMGW con. UK government which set taxes and payouts to ensure thousands of hectares of farm land remains waste land rather than providing bio-fuel. Ecozealots who have blocked nuclear energy, knowing full well that a large scale source of non-fossil electricity would undermine their demands for a return to dark ages.

    Complain about this comment

  • 242. At 10:59am on 07 Feb 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @jr4412

    My post #235 was definitely intended to be barbed one, but the earlier #231 post was not, it was a genuine suggestion. Many of us sceptics are not non-green, despite the continual posts accusing us of all sorts of things.

    Complain about this comment

  • 243. At 11:05am on 07 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Dempster #240

    My personal view of Richard is that he is sincere in his beliefs and, for the record, many sceptics share his beliefs on the environment and biodiversity, but differ when it comes to AGW.

    Speaking for myself, I accept that man has the ability to, and indeed is, changing the environment and not in a good way.

    Before any AGW'ers leap on this, I accept land change use, deforestation, pollution etc is man made climate change, but i don't accept that CO2, which is not a pollutant, is a primary driver of global warming and climate change, because there is no evidence to support CO2 being able to raise the temperature significantly. Does that make me a "luke warmer" or a sceptic? Does it matter what the label is, if there is no evidence to support the CO2 = significant global warming question?

    What annoys me about many environmental correspondants, and I include Richard in this, is they will receive a press release from a AGW'er and print it verbatim without apparently checking if the story is valid. An example of this is the 2nd hockey stick, where Mann confuses Spain with Africa introducing considerable warming where it shouldn't be. None of the MSM, as far as I am aware, carried the correction.

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 244. At 12:01pm on 07 Feb 2010, Dempster wrote:

    To 243. At 11:05am on 07 Feb 2010, MangoChutneyUKOK

    Well I’ve decided to be a pro AGW type.

    And I’ve asked the question:
    What do we in the UK do to stop AGW (based on the assumption it exists of course).

    Particularly given that we’re supposed to be going for ‘economic growth’ and have an increasing population.

    And up to press I’ve yet to read any article or blog that has even a modestly sensible answer.

    As far as I can tell everyone seems to be arguing whether it does or does not exist.

    The odd thing is, even if AGW does exist, it would appear there is no reasoned way of stopping it in any event.

    Complain about this comment

  • 245. At 12:21pm on 07 Feb 2010, Bonn1e wrote:

    OK. Despite the differing points of view, it is obvious that a great deal of effort has been put into trying to predict what 'the climate' of future years might be. Many, many studies and huge amounts of analysis have been devoted to this and we are repeatedly urged to 'make a choice'. However, can anyone point me in the direction of similar studies which examine the possible outcomes of the various economic and social changes proposed to 'combat' the perceived threat? It seems unrealistic and unhelpful to make choices based upon only one set of projections i.e. what might happen if we do nothing. What about the possible outcomes of doing 'something'?

    Complain about this comment

  • 246. At 12:21pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @blunderbunny
    @manysummits
    @jr4412
    @Embra
    @thinkforyourself

    Agh. Big mistake in Leakey lecture. Big. Please remember Richard Leakey is not a climatologist.

    "And the temperature has risen, by over two degrees, Celsius, already. It's not a question of if it does, over the next thirty years. It has, over the last ten." @18:20

    http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/vet/news-events/news/2009-memorial-lecture

    However over the past 10 years the very slight rise (between about 0.01 and 0.1 degrees Celsius) is not statistically significant.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last3A120/trend/plot/uah/last3A120/trend/plot/rss/last3A120/trend/plot/gistemp/last3A120/trend

    I really wish Richard Leakey hadn't said this.

    I have seen some attempted AGW explanations for this, but not compiled into a list. And search engines just find "1998 was a hot year" which only applies to the "going down since 1998" argument.

    Complain about this comment

  • 247. At 12:23pm on 07 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Dempster #244

    What do we in the UK do to stop AGW (based on the assumption it exists of course).

    I really don't think that question can be answered until the assumption is proven

    Infinity points to Royer 2007 as proof that climate sensitivity is high, but, as far as i can see, Royer does not address the water vapour issue (clouds), whereas Idso does - "CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change" (Sherwood Idso 1998)

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/idso98.htm

    (pdf to paper at bottom of page)

    I'm curious why the IPCC didn't even consider Idso's paper when compiling AR4 and yet did reference other work on climate sensitivity

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 248. At 12:28pm on 07 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Bonn1e #245

    What about the possible outcomes of doing 'something'?

    You are right, we need to consider the impact of doing something to "solve" AGW. What if the erection of hundreds of windmills takes the energy out of the wind and causes changes to rainfall patterns? Would we cause drought somewhere that is currently good farming land?

    Has anybody studied this or are we just putting up windmills because it's the green thing to do?

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 249. At 12:34pm on 07 Feb 2010, Dempster wrote:

    247. At 12:23pm on 07 Feb 2010, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
    @Dempster #244

    What do we in the UK do to stop AGW (based on the assumption it exists of course).

    I really don't think that question can be answered until the assumption is proven


    Well that's where we differ. I don't think that question can be answered even if AGW is proven, at least not with any hope of ever being implemented.

    Complain about this comment

  • 250. At 12:40pm on 07 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @JaneBasingstoke #246

    Good point Jane

    Still like Richard Leakey's work though

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 251. At 12:41pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @blunderbunny
    @manysummits
    @jr4412
    @Embra
    @thinkforyourself
    @myself #246

    (Agh. Sorry, dud link. %3A for colon in link. Not 3A for colon in link.)

    However over the past 10 years the very slight rise (between about 0.01 and 0.1 degrees Celsius) is not statistically significant.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last%3A120/trend/plot/uah/last%3A120/trend/plot/rss/last%3A120/trend/plot/gistemp/last%3A120/trend

    I really wish Richard Leakey hadn't made his 2 degrees Celsius comment.

    I have seen some attempted AGW explanations for this, but not compiled into a list. And search engines just find "1998 was a hot year" which only applies to the "going down since 1998" argument.

    Complain about this comment

  • 252. At 1:08pm on 07 Feb 2010, Bonn1e wrote:

    #248. MangoChutneyUKOK

    I must admit I had not even begun to consider the type of technological implications to which you refer - although this is very valid too! I was thinking mainly in terms of the effects of near-future large rises in taxation and energy prices, global economic growth and possible instabilities arising from differing viewpoints by different nations. All of these things need to be analysed equally before a balanced choice can be made.
    We are often told that we have a responsibility to 'future generations' but it is not possible to foresee the future and it seems naive to assume that any given course of action is the 'right' thing to do. It is not at all difficult for me to imagine 'future generations' nodding sagely and saying 'Of course, they didn't know that THEN' as they view the wreckage caused by attempts to curb 'global warming'!

    Complain about this comment

  • 253. At 1:53pm on 07 Feb 2010, Dempster wrote:

    For those still in the business of discussing whether AGW does or conversely does not exist.

    Imagine for a moment that Mr Black had managed to convince people that AGW actually exists.

    And having so convinced people, they asked:

    What oh wise one should we in the UK do about AGW?

    Mr Black would likely be stuck for an answer, because in an industrialised country with an expanding population whose economic model is based upon ‘growth’, there isn’t one.


    Complain about this comment

  • 254. At 1:59pm on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Corbiere at # 213 says:-

    ‘……The BBC's Roger Harrabin has only the following links posted on his blog site:
    RealClimate; Copenhagen Consensus; Climatic Research Unit; and the IPCC website
    All of these are dedicated to pushing the hypothesis of Man-Made Global Warning, and were created for that purpose. They are NOT objective unbiased sites where the public can go for an overview, or to hear the scientific argument for alternative views…… ‘

    I think JaneBasingstoke at#215 successfully dismantled the entire premise of your cosy little conspiracy theory.

    Got any others?

    Complain about this comment

  • 255. At 2:05pm on 07 Feb 2010, Bonn1e wrote:

    253. Dempster

    I agree with you. The problem seems to be that proposed measures to curtail global warming might have consequences every bit as far-reaching and 'catastrophic' as those predicted by AGW supporters, and yet little research appears to be being conducted into this. We cannot therefore make a balanced judgement, whatever our views on the science may be.

    Complain about this comment

  • 256. At 2:09pm on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Yeah, jr4412 at #218
    JackMaxDaniels at #171 finks the M25 is brill’.
    He wants anuvver one near ‘is ‘ouse.

    Complain about this comment

  • 257. At 2:13pm on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    ManBearPig4 at # 219:-
    Dripping with sarcasm says:-

    ‘…Mr. Lovelock hopes that one day we will share with Gaia, peacefully cooperating with and using whales to travel as we once did with horses….’

    Whereas ManBearPig4 wants to use the whale blubber as a ‘resource’.

    Complain about this comment

  • 258. At 2:21pm on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    I think it is very sad Jane at # 221.
    It just goes to show that big business interests are totally dysfunctional and will bully anyone or anything that gets in their way, no matter what the cost to the individual.
    I fully support Phil Jones for many reasons but primarily for the simple fact that it is clear to anyone, with half a brain, what was going on in the lead up to the Copenhagen summit.

    Complain about this comment

  • 259. At 2:22pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @edward #207

    Bit disturbed by your comment piece. You seem to be going far beyond the IPCC and mainstream climate science.

    The 99% extinction you refer to is the end Permian extinction, between the Permian and the Triassic. There are big differences between what is happening now and the end Permian extinction, not least that in the end Permian extinction the oceans probably lost much of their dissolved oxygen becoming stagnant.

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

    There are many ideas about what caused the end Permian extinction, and it is likely to have been a combination of some. Siberian Traps volcanic emissions probably contributed, but aren't enough on their own.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event#Causes_of_extinction_event

    Methane escaping from melting permafrost and escaping from warming oceans is an acknowledged and highly controversial issue. It definitely plays a role in positive feedbacks, amplifying global warming. But the role you describe goes far beyond that. Your description is from a worst case scenario. The 5 degree rise you mention is not the unstoppable prediction that you believe.

    Finally a point about ice cores. They are better than some of the alternatives for investigating the past climate. But they don't go back the millions of years that you suggest. The furthest back I know of is EPICA.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Project_for_Ice_Coring_in_Antarctica
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeoclimatology

    Complain about this comment

  • 260. At 2:30pm on 07 Feb 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    Interesting commentary on the failure of main stream media. It laments the complete lack of investigative journalism.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/5749853/the-global-warming-guerrillas.thtml

    Quote "So used are greens to sycophancy in the television studios that when they occasionally encounter even slightly hard questions they are outraged. Peter Sissons of the BBC: ‘I pointed out to [Caroline Lucas of the Green party] that the climate didn’t seem to be playing ball at the moment. We were having a particularly cold winter, even though carbon emissions were increasing. Indeed, there had been no warming for ten years, contradicting all the alarming computer predictions... Miss Lucas told me angrily that it was disgraceful that the BBC — the BBC! — should be giving any kind of publicity to those sort of views.’"

    The fact of the matter is that this whole man-made warming movement has nothing to do with science and everything to do with religion and politics. The truth is that the science is far far from settled - although we do know for sure, that man-made CO2 has an insignificant impact. This is becoming self evident after decades of inability of computer models to model the climate and over ten years of extremest alarmism with no actual catastrophes to show for it (funny that the catastrophes are always out there sometime beyond the retirement date of the paper's authors)

    Complain about this comment

  • 261. At 2:40pm on 07 Feb 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    @246, JaneBasingstoke.

    I think the 2C figure may refer to the Antarctic Peninsula.

    Complain about this comment

  • 262. At 2:43pm on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Shadorne at #227 says:-

    ‘…..Indeed, you are right, my dogma is rooted in Atmospheric Physics, which is what I studied in college. That is what a higher education in pure Physics does for you…’

    Clearly your ‘dogma’ is ‘rooted’ in Atmospheric Physics, your own very narrow interpretation of it.
    You said, as I recall, at 6.51 on 24th January of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Caltech, foremost scientific institutions in the world:-

    Quote:-

    ‘…….Unfortunately none of what you spout or the links you refer to is credible science. It is all simply speculation. I don't need to "believe" in someone or something. I can read the papers and do the maths and physics myself. …………….. JPL employees can also speculate all they want. The FACT is we do NOT know with any certainty what will be the temperature 100 years from now….’

    Where did you say you studied your ‘Atmospheric Physics’?

    Complain about this comment

  • 263. At 2:51pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @MangoChutneyUKOK #250
    @blunderbunny
    @manysummits
    @jr4412
    @Embra
    @thinkforyourself

    Firstly I would remind you that Richard Leakey is not a climatologist.

    To someone not steeped in climatology "2 degrees Celsius in 10 years" and "about 0.5 degrees since the mid 20th century" both sound like "a tiny but significant rise that is much smaller than weather". Which is presumably how it escaped any proofreading he did.

    Secondly I would remind you that his point about "wildlife corridors", so that populations of wild animals don't get fragmented, and don't get cut off during normal seasonal migrations, and don't clash as often with humans, is very much part of his expertise.

    So I am extremely glad you, Mango, still like Leakey's work.

    Complain about this comment

  • 264. At 2:54pm on 07 Feb 2010, Bonn1e wrote:

    262. thinkforyourself

    I am mystified! Are you saying that you personally know 'with certainty' what the temperature will be in 2110?

    Complain about this comment

  • 265. At 3:12pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @RobWansbeck #261

    Thanks for that.

    I have to admit, if I'd caught one of you sceptics making a context error like that I'd have been firm to the point of rudeness in correcting it.

    @MangoChutneyUKOK
    @blunderbunny
    @manysummits
    @jr4412
    @Embra
    @thinkforyourself

    Richard Leakey's reference to a 2 degree Celsius rise would appear to be for part of Western Antarctica, where there has been overt warming even recently.

    Starts 17:13

    http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/vet/news-events/news/2009-memorial-lecture

    Complain about this comment

  • 266. At 3:24pm on 07 Feb 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @jr4412 + Janebasingstoke(keep wanting to insert a from, sorry Jane)

    Just finished listening to Leakey. I don’t have any trouble with the land use and bio-diversity stuff. We differ markedly on AGW(2 degrees - engage smirk) and if he's going to pick out coelacanths as an example, I'd point to spiders, ants, crocodiles and ferns to name but a few. But they live on surface, so they wouldn’t fit so nicely into the lecture, as they've actually happily survived climate change a number of times.

    Essentially, the crux of the problem is that the green movement is alienating its traditional support and it's also going out on a limb sciencewise, which is alienating the scientists amongst us.

    All the name calling, accusations of vested interests is just making you guys look like idiots. Better for you to re-engage, to admit that some of the science is a bit flaky, that some mistakes have been made and that certain individuals have been seriously negligent. If you can come to terms with all of that, then this is still a recoverable position. If you guys want to continue to bury your heads in the sand, then this can only go one way.

    If you think it's bad now, you haven't seen nothing yet. Wait until the full searchlight of public scrutiny and the ever greedy 24-hour news machine really gets their teeth sunk into this - I'm telling you now it's not going to be pretty and I personally don’t want to see the green movement put through the shredder........

    Complain about this comment

  • 267. At 3:29pm on 07 Feb 2010, JackMaxDaniels wrote:

    218. At 02:06am on 07 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    "... all saying I was correct I note."

    then,,,

    "yes, life WILL go on, albeit without many of the currently existing forms, perhaps even without humans. I'm mystified though why you thank your god for industrialisation; is it because it enables us to destroy habitats on an unprecedented scale? or is it because you revel in taking human and other creature's lives using high tech? or perhaps because it helps us to remove competing life forms? or -- my guess -- because it enables you to lead a comfortable, sheltered life (and never mind anyone or anything else)?"


    Here in is the rub.

    You insult me and my way of life without even knowing me or my fellow humans and make subjective assumptions based on fear. Sounds like a religion to me.

    Actually it reminds me very much of the Weapons of Mass Destruction loonacy in our recent past.

    Quite simply, if the IPCC is so sceintific and so full of eminent scientists and peers,,, where is the balance ?

    The ecology of the world has worked for millions (not billions) of years because some life uses Oxygen and other parts use Carbon Dioxide.

    There is no exploration of the Carbon Dioxide life forms at all. In fact there is no recognition of the carbon cycle at all. There is no recognition of how regardless of what we humans do the planet will continue to recycle carbon deposits in oil and coal in the ground anyway.

    This is hysteria based on dominating and subjigating the ignorant - much like your statement above.

    If the process was in any way scientific we would not see calls for taxes or price hikes. We would simply see action being taken to make the best use of our resources.

    Simple things like getting rid of cooling towers from power stations and using the heat to heat our homes (wow that was hard) or getting rid of the London commute and actually having jobs spread around the country. Maybe even producing food locally,, oo that's tough one.

    But no money is the solution as money is being paid to produce this so called "scientific" research.

    Welcome to the human condition of love and understanding - NOT.

    And here I will make my final point, I LIVE in the countryside and I WORK there. And yes there is the taking of life on a second by second basis. Welcome to life and the life cycle. If you seriously think you are somehow not connected to the continued fight for life then stop eating and die - it's the only way you can avoid it. Every single morsal of food or drink that passes your lips could have been used by other life on the planet, welcome to life.

    If you had to fight with other creatures on this planet for the right to life you would clearly understand but I cannot see either an appreaciation for life or a recognition of what life is in your statement.

    If you for any second believe the contrary go become a farmer and find out the reality of life and maybe, just maybe you'll understand how ignorant your statement truely is.

    If you dont want to live a comfortable life as you put it or not compete with other life forms - which I note you patently are by even being on this forum - give up life and let those who would make use of it live.

    Go do some hunting, fishing, shooting, farming and maybe you'll find yourself and no we cant all just get along,,, that is exactly what life is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 268. At 3:34pm on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Mangochutney at #243 says:-

    ‘…Before any AGW'ers leap on this, I accept land change use, deforestation, pollution etc is man made climate change, but i don't accept that CO2, which is not a pollutant, is a primary driver of global warming and climate change, because there is no evidence to support CO2 being able to raise the temperature significantly. ..’

    And, conversely, it seems odd to those on the other side of this issue that you portray yourselves as ‘environmentalists’ on all other issues except where it comes to pouring 40 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, annually, without really any need to address the possible consequences of that action.

    You surely see how that could look odd. It could look to an engaged observer that there must be some other agenda going on when the supposed scientific ‘scepticism’ relates only to fossil fuel emissions.
    You must see that, surely?

    Complain about this comment

  • 269. At 3:37pm on 07 Feb 2010, JackMaxDaniels wrote:

    #256. At 2:09pm on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    "Yeah, jr4412 at #218
    JackMaxDaniels at #171 finks the M25 is brill’.
    He wants anuvver one near ‘is ‘ouse."

    Lol,, funny how it degenerates into insults and denegration of character.

    Well the fact remains without the industrial revolution you and me wouldnt exist.

    Ignorance is blind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 270. At 3:40pm on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Bonn1e, Dempster #244, #245:-

    Have a read of this:-
    http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/stern.htm

    Complain about this comment

  • 271. At 3:40pm on 07 Feb 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    264. At 2:54pm on 07 Feb 2010, Bonn1e wrote:

    "262. thinkforyourself

    I am mystified! Are you saying that you personally know 'with certainty' what the temperature will be in 2110? "

    Exactly my point. Bonn1e. The alarmists "KNOW" we have a catastrophe coming. They absolutely refuse to accept that, despite our best efforts, the Physics and Science is far from settled. They also seem unable to accept that climate has been varying dramatically in the past on almost every conceivable time scale - i.e. recent warming could easily be entirely natural.

    Of course, without the alarmist's "end-of-the-world as we know it" version of the future then their professed mission is no longer, to use Richard Black's very words, "crucial to humanity's future"!

    The alarmists zeal and self importance makes me cringe. The way they have attempted to hi-jack politics and to introduce harmful legislation and heavy taxes is far more frightening than the CO2 Monster.

    Complain about this comment

  • 272. At 3:44pm on 07 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To ghostofsichuan

    "American Raj" is an eye-opener.

    One can only wonder in grim silence at the goings on in this world. Truly, to be 'normal' is not normal.

    We are civilized - and disturbed personalities.

    I have kept to science and adventure, and have steered clear of the poison that is politics and social interaction.

    A lone wolf.

    Now the human race is in imminent danger of collapse, possibly extinction. That we will take millions of species with us into the grave is without question.

    \\\ Civilized ///

    Here in the blogosphere the poison that is politics and 'business as usual' is writ large, for all with eyes to see.

    But our eyes have been put out, haven't they - we are \\\ Civilized ///

    Ghost, of all the bloggers I have met on this weblog, I identify most strongly with yourself. And of all the books I have read, I identify most with the father in Cormac McCarthy's "The Road."

    I cannot protect Cloudrunner indefinitely - sometimes I wonder if I can protect my loved ones at all.

    I am riveted by the Arthurian Legend, and Merlin's statements on life, so near in some ways to the Bhagavad Gita, which I have read several times.

    "And then Arthur learned, as all leaders are astonished to learn, that peace, not war, is the destroyer of men."

    It seems to me that if we cannot truly protect, we can at least fight.

    Perhaps it is truly the only thing we can do.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 273. At 3:44pm on 07 Feb 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    @265., JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @RobWansbeck #261

    Thanks for that.

    You're welcome.

    It's a miserable day outside and the kids have stopped in. My PC has a poor sound system but unfortunately my son's games machine and my daughter's music player both have very good sound systems.
    I had great difficulty hearing the speech but I think he was talking about warming starting in polar regions then spreading out. Was he talking of one station?

    The Antarctic Peninsula has warmed by about 2.5C over the past 50 years but short term station variability is high. From individual stations you can get a figure to suit most requirements;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 274. At 3:50pm on 07 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @thinkforyourself #268

    And, conversely, it seems odd to those on the other side of this issue that you portray yourselves as ‘environmentalists’ on all other issues except where it comes to pouring 40 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, annually, without really any need to address the possible consequences of that action.

    i would have to accept CO2 is the primary driver of global warming to consider it odd, and since there is no evidence to support such a claim, i don;t think it is odd

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 275. At 3:57pm on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Jane, on the Antarctic peninsular warming of which Prof. Leakey was speaking:-

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-11/nocs-pco110609.php

    It says:-
    "At no time during the last 14 thousand years was there a period of climate warming and loss of ice as large and regionally synchronous as that we are now witnessing in the Antarctic Peninsula," says team member Dr Steve Bohaty of the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOCS), home of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science (SOES)."

    Complain about this comment

  • 276. At 4:00pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @blunderbunny #266

    You've seen my earlier posts on the quality of the sceptic movement.

    I have made it quite plain to the people on my side of the debate that the best sceptics are just as competent and noble as the best on the pro-AGW side of the debate.

    I also thought that I did engage in some of the scientific debate here. I don't engage in all of it, I don't have the expertise.

    Also if you look at my posts you will see another theme.

    I want the competent sceptic scientists taken seriously by the mainstream climate scientists. I believe that where the mainstream have failed to take sceptic science seriously it is because of misunderstandings.

    I believe identifying those understandings and their possible causes essential to the debate and essential to clearing up the mess that has hurt both sides.

    However just because most of the grass roots of the sceptic movement is civilised, doesn't mean that powerful vested interests don't play dirty. And the vested interests have left evidence. I believe pressure from vested interests has contributed to the misunderstandings between scientists.

    Oh, and the vested interests have left evidence.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/07/george-monbiot-blog-climate-denial-industry

    PS on the subject of the "from". Definitely not offended, I live in Basingstoke. But if I take a break and there are lots of new comments, the find function in IE might not find yours.

    Complain about this comment

  • 277. At 4:09pm on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Shadorne at #271
    Says:-
    ‘…The alarmists zeal and self importance makes me cringe. The way they have attempted to hi-jack politics and to introduce harmful legislation and heavy taxes is far more frightening than the CO2 Monster…’

    Shadorne, name one demonstrably ‘Green’ government on this planet.
    As far as I can tell they are all in cahoots with big business and as for raising taxes we have just seen world governments using our money to bail out the uber rich bankers. Spain, Iceland and Greece are on their knees as a result and the UK isn’t far behind.

    I think you guys are attacking the wrong people, for whatever reason.

    Complain about this comment

  • 278. At 4:36pm on 07 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @thinkforyourself #277

    Shadorne, name one demonstrably ‘Green’ government on this planet.
    As far as I can tell they are all in cahoots with big business


    I think we have found common ground, my friend

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 279. At 4:43pm on 07 Feb 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    Interesting that Monbiot describes the publication of text from a private organization as a 'leak' whereas the publication of text from a public body is a hack or theft.

    Complain about this comment

  • 280. At 4:54pm on 07 Feb 2010, ScienceIsNotSettledYet wrote:

    Follow the money :)
    And think about deniers financed by oil companies (which will make money from everything - also from CO2 capture, and green energy, because they do have capital & knowledge)

    http://www.climate-resistance.org/2010/01/wwf-wtf.html

    And google-out: pension fund climate

    Complain about this comment

  • 281. At 5:24pm on 07 Feb 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    Wow - the BBC gives space to a disgraced proponent of man-made global warming, who manipulated "peer review" process and obstructed Freedom of Information Act (broke the law).

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8502823.stm

    Meanwhile, there has been absolutely no BBC coverage or interviews of skeptics.

    Not one interview since Climategate began - just a few secondhand mentions of the skeptics or references to the Guardian.

    Clearly this article intended to show skeptics in a bad light and to show that Prof Jones is really good remorseful chap.

    The biased world that is the BBC is blindingly obvious to all. How disgusting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 282. At 5:34pm on 07 Feb 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    I hear Professor Peter Liss of East Anglia University on "One Planet" last night. If I had any doubts suggesting that he might be telling us somthing I could believe, he dispelled them. He was as arrogant and cocky as he could be. His attitude; "we are the scientists, we know what is right, you who are not know nothing. We don't supress other opinions, we just have heated disagreements. We are outraged at the theft and disclosure of private communications between scientists and feel no reason to defend what they say, they were not intended for public dislosure." and the Frenchman who was on the IPCC was as slippery and evasive as a greased eel. "Nothing is settled. Science is never settled." Then why are you telling us to turn the world inside out? I'm more convinced than ever that the entire thing is no more than a huge hoax. Whatever it is, it is not science. Not by any definition of the term I accept.

    Complain about this comment

  • 283. At 5:46pm on 07 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    Shadorne writes in #281:

    "The biased world that is the BBC is blindingly obvious to all. How disgusting."
    ------------

    This is an oft repeated mantra of the contrarian lobby.

    The only thing blindingly obvious to me is your 'business as usual' agenda of disinformation and personal attack, designed in many posts to be deliberately inflammatory.

    Your feigned disgust is a tactic - my disgust with you and your fellows is genuine. Look it up - genuine.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 284. At 5:48pm on 07 Feb 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    thinkforyourself: "Shadorne, name one demonstrably ‘Green’ government on this planet."

    Amazing. The West is spending billions annually on everything from subsidized solar panels across Germany to offshore wind farms in the UK. All of these taxpayer funded efforts (including all the billions to fund climate research) and you have the gall to suggest that we are not doing enough?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/26/greenpolitics.energy

    Do you mean that given your thermageddon end-of-the-world prognosis we should actually waste even more money??

    "As far as I can tell they are all in cahoots with big business" - well here we agree - that is precisely what has happened with "man-made warming"! It is turning into a boondoggle for what are uneconomic industries and meanwhile the shift of the West's industrial base to China/India is accelerating rapidly.


    Complain about this comment

  • 285. At 5:50pm on 07 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    Ben Santer is a climate researcher in the United States:

    "Phil Jones is one of the gentlemen of our field. He has given decades of his life not only to cutting-edge scientific research on the nature and causes of climate change, but also to a variety of difficult and time-consuming community service activities - such as his dedicated (and repeated) service as a Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

    http://www.desmogblog.com/ben-santer-savages-cru-email-thieves
    -------------

    I hate to see a good man go down.

    You will have to imagine my feelings for the lobby.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 286. At 6:11pm on 07 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @manysummits #285

    you forgot to mention Santer did his PhD at CRU:

    I obtained my Ph.D. at the Climatic Research Unit. I went to CRU in 1983 because it was - and remains - one of the world's premier institutions for studying the nature and causes of climate change. During the course of my Ph.D., I was privileged to work together with exceptional scientists - with people like Tom Wigley, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, and Sarah Raper.

    from your link

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 287. At 6:11pm on 07 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    The photographs revealing torture by US troops in Iraq were also stolen, but surely the manner in which their contents became public is irrelevant as long as they are genuine?

    Somethimes theft is entirely justified for the greater good of truth.

    Complain about this comment

  • 288. At 6:18pm on 07 Feb 2010, Bonn1e wrote:

    270. thinkforyourself

    Thank you for your link to the Stern Report. Unfortunately this report does not make any serious investigation at all into the costs of its proposals for 'combating' climate change! There is an assertion that the costs might be between -0.1 and +3.4 % of global GDP and some vague statements such as 'Slowly reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses that cause climate change is likely to entail some costs' and 'Cleaner and more efficient technologies are needed to make radical emission cuts in the medium to long term. Their future costs are uncertain' but the report does not, I think, claim to have made a realistic study of the costs involved. Your link therefore does not go any way towards answering my question!

    Complain about this comment

  • 289. At 6:22pm on 07 Feb 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Janebasingstoke + jr4412

    Sorry Jane, I was not lumping 'you' personally in with the collective 'you' that I was using to in reference to warmists in general, I've always found you to be level headed and fair.

    Whilst I'm at it, the same could also be said of jr4412, who shares some of my views on bio-diversity and once even offered me a cup of coffee.

    You get so used to writing/typing these things in a certain tone - I certainly don't think of either of you in the same way, that I think of some of our other bloggers - Sorry, once again, if I came over that way.

    Complain about this comment

  • 290. At 6:29pm on 07 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    jon112uk #241.

    the quote was actually xandrani's at #35.

    I agree with Exxon's base motive being profit, but would add that (a) I don't think they'll develop any alternatives while the going is still good, and (b) that General Motors for instance pulled the viable 'electric Vehicle One' inexplicably; like Exxon, they're happy to continue using oil for now.

    "Ecozealots who have blocked nuclear energy, knowing full well that a large scale source of non-fossil electricity would undermine their demands for a return to dark ages."

    hope you'll find time to watch the Leakey lecture (linked in #187), he robustly counters this type of argument.

    nb. 'Ecozealots'? really! ;)



    blunderbunny #242, #266.

    thanks for clearing this up (and sorry, I was tired).

    "We differ markedly on AGW(2 degrees - engage smirk).."

    well, he specifically referred to a visit to Antarctic research stations and actual data collected there, not sure why you interpret the comment as you do.

    "Essentially, the crux of the problem is that the green movement is alienating its traditional support.."

    forced to agree, should have stuck to addressing the core problems (ie business as usual rendering the habitat unusable) rather than getting involved in the politically driven COP15 stuff.



    Bonn1e #245.

    "What about the possible outcomes of doing 'something'?"

    I can see only one: civil unrest (read revolution) which will be crushed using all those shiny weapons our governments have at their disposal to control and kill us.



    JaneBasingstoke #246, #265.
    (RobWansbeck).

    correction aside, don't you think his arguments overall were sensible? and not just disappearing habitats, I was struck by his views on water issues and wasteful lifestyles in general.



    Dempster #253.

    "..in an industrialised country with an expanding population whose economic model is based upon ‘growth’, there isn’t one."

    hence my earlier (vague ;)) comments on the need for reform at the highest levels (ie UN, corporate law, etc).



    thinkforyourself #258.

    "It just goes to show that big business interests are totally dysfunctional and will bully anyone or anything that gets in their way, no matter what the cost to the individual."

    par for the course, remember Dr David Kelly, or the smear campaign against Dr Hans Blix?



    JackMaxDaniels #267.

    "Actually it reminds me very much of the Weapons of Mass Destruction loonacy [sic] in our recent past."

    what, like a Prime Minister dissembling to take the country into an illegal conflict which costed an estimated 750,000 civilian lives?

    "This is hysteria based on dominating and subjigating the ignorant.."

    as in taking them abroad in 'extraordinary rendition' flights? or incarcerating people without trial, without proven cause, for years? FUD is part of propaganda.

    get real.

    "You insult me and my way of life without even knowing me or my fellow humans and make subjective assumptions based on fear. Sounds like a religion to me."

    religion -- you were the one who thanked his 'god' for industrialisation.

    I put it to you, as my best guess, that you're very comfortable with your view that you do not have to change your way of life (and never mind that you are in your pleasant rural setting only because of an accident of birth!). insult? -- as they say, if the shoe fits..


    Complain about this comment

  • 291. At 6:29pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    Front page headlines in today's British press.

    Sunday Express
    £8BN BBC ECO BIAS
    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/156703

    Sunday Times
    I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece

    Sindie
    Climate Change $ceptics
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thinktanks-take-oil-money-and-use-it-to-fund-climate-deniers-1891747.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 292. At 6:37pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @shadorne #281

    That is callous.

    The situation in climate science at the moment is a mess. There have been casualties on both sides that have not done anything wrong and others who have been punished far in excess of their crimes.

    Your comment does not help matters.

    Complain about this comment

  • 293. At 6:37pm on 07 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    MarcusAureliusII #282.

    "I'm more convinced than ever that the entire thing is no more than a huge hoax. Whatever it is, it is not science. Not by any definition of the term I accept."

    why bother? many of your posts to BBC weblogs are so rabidly anti-European, I'm certain you wouldn't accept anything, no matter what, simply because of the European connection.

    Complain about this comment

  • 294. At 6:38pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @shadorne #281

    By the way, that comment will be embarrassing your fellow sceptics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 295. At 6:41pm on 07 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    blunderbunny #289.

    "..even offered me a cup of coffee"

    or two! ;)

    yes, the problems arising from the absence of feedbacks like body language, intonation, etc; I remember this issue being raised some time ago.

    Complain about this comment

  • 296. At 6:51pm on 07 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    ScienceIsNotSettledYet #280.

    "Follow the money :) ... financed by oil companies .."

    as an aside, in 1989 when the 'Exxon Valdez' incident occurred, Exxon Mobil was earning around $300m per day.

    Complain about this comment

  • 297. At 6:55pm on 07 Feb 2010, Bonn1e wrote:

    290. jr4412

    Bonn1e #245.
    "What about the possible outcomes of doing 'something'?"

    I can see only one: civil unrest (read revolution) which will be crushed using all those shiny weapons our governments have at their disposal to control and kill us.

    You have misunderstood I think and that your 'shiny weapons' scenario applies to NON-action on CO2. My question was what about the possible outcomes of 'doing something about climate change' i.e. the costs of trying to drastically reduce CO2 output e.g by increased taxation, trebling energy costs and carbon trading schemes. What investigation has there been into the possible outcomes of these actions? Without investigating both possible outcomes a balanced decision cannot be made can it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 298. At 6:57pm on 07 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    JackMaxDaniels #269.

    "Well the fact remains without the industrial revolution you and me wouldnt exist."

    LOL

    “How good bad music and bad reasons sound when we march against an enemy”
    -- Friedrich Nietzsche

    Complain about this comment

  • 299. At 7:04pm on 07 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Unless you are ill or infirm, suicide is a "political" act. The idea is to create as big a mess behind you as you possibly can, leaving everyone wringing their hands and accusing each other of neglect. Suicide and victim-stancing are standard terrorist tricks, and I'm not falling for either of them.

    Phil Jones's public claims that "I contemplated suicide" is a loathsome attempt to manipulate public opinion: he seems to have the skills of the hunger-striker and suicide-bomber, minus the guts. What a zero. If this little creep really cared about what he had done in the name of science, he would offer to resign.

    Complain about this comment

  • 300. At 7:12pm on 07 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @bowman #299

    agree on the resign bit

    but we should all be condemning any death threats that Jones may have received as totally unacceptable

    hopefully AGW'ers will join me in condemning Hansens Nuremberg style trials for contrarians comment

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 301. At 7:22pm on 07 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Bonn1e #297.

    but that is the point; we're running out of time exactly because alternatives, even though available, are not properly "investigated"/considered/costed because of the 'momentum' of vested interests and existing (infra-structure) investments. (including cases like the Exxon reference in xandrani's #35)

    and even where there are commitments (like solar powered plants), they're still to function within the same framework, that is, run by the sort of monopolistic enterprises which have brought us our recent banking 'crisis'.

    this business as usual model -- the 'free' market -- has demonstrably failed in pretty much all industries, to replace it with alternatives will require radical changes and those will not come about without conflict. unfortunately.

    Complain about this comment

  • 302. At 7:24pm on 07 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #300 MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:

    "we should all be condemning any death threats that Jones may have received as totally unacceptable"

    That goes without saying -- which is why I didn't say it.

    The only publicly confirmed death threat so far is the hugely narcissistic and manipulative victim-stancing from Mr Teenage Girl!

    Complain about this comment

  • 303. At 7:27pm on 07 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    I haven't been following the "death threats" story, but if they were claimed by this confirmed victim-stancer, I'm getting even more sceptical by the minute!

    Complain about this comment

  • 304. At 7:42pm on 07 Feb 2010, Bonn1e wrote:

    301. jr4412

    I think it is perhaps unreasonable to say that alternative sources of energy are not being investigated; the fact that they such supplies will be provided by large organisations is I think inevitable - I certainly don't have the money to provide them, do you?! What do you have in mind? The problem is that in order to cut CO2 emissions by the amounts being suggested, within the timescales put forward by many of the AGW theorists, it will be necessary to make unprecedented changes to the economies and livlihoods of millions of people. Surely jumping up and down and saying 'It must be done NOW or it will be too late' is likely to create just as big a mess as doing nothing at all!

    Complain about this comment

  • 305. At 7:46pm on 07 Feb 2010, ManBearPig4 wrote:

    To all the Exxon employees here who are not at all bright but are tired of the vultures circling the wagons, you could go to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece#comment-have-your-say.

    The comments section is much more fun.

    Complain about this comment

  • 306. At 7:47pm on 07 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    JackMaxDaniels #269: "Well the fact remains without the industrial revolution you and me wouldnt exist."

    jr4412 298: "LOL"

    But once you're finished holding your belly laughing, you might think about how the human population rose following the technological developments of the industrial revolution. Cheap energy means cheap food and low infant mortality. Expensive energy means expensive food and high infant mortality.

    I say it again: the huge Irish population rise in the nineteenth century -- followed by the Irish famine -- is a lesson for the entire world. Let us please be attuned to this lesson, because the poor people of the developing world are in great danger as rich westerners swank about in gigantic SUVs for an afternoon's outing, and afterwards discuss the horrors of global warming as they tuck into their cheese course.

    Complain about this comment

  • 307. At 7:49pm on 07 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    I presume that Jones can "release data" to the police about death threats? Or does he think he shouldn't tell them in case they find fault with it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 308. At 7:51pm on 07 Feb 2010, Bonn1e wrote:

    299. bowmanthebard

    Insensitive though it seems, I have to agree with you. Having poured out his heart to The Times, Prof Jones then went on to repeat his story of woe on The Andrew Marr show. This hardly seems the behaviour of a someone seriously considering suicide.

    Complain about this comment

  • 309. At 8:00pm on 07 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #300 MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:

    "hopefully AGW'ers will join me in condemning Hansens Nuremberg style trials for contrarians comment"

    I won't be, although I disagree with it. We should welcome offensive views as different from our own. Anyway, "condemning" this or that opinion is a silly thing to be doing. I am not the Pope, or Nelson Mandela, and I presume no one on this blog is the Pope, or Nelson Mandela, and even if they were, wouldn't "condemning" still be a silly thing to be doing?

    "On second thoughts let's not go to Camelot -- it is a silly place!"

    Complain about this comment

  • 310. At 8:01pm on 07 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    News of the death of Alaskan Glaciers has been greatly exaggerated

    http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1692.htm

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 311. At 8:09pm on 07 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @bowman #309

    I don't have a problem with people disagreeing and Hansen is obviously entitled to his view, but for a public employee to act like an activist and essentially call for contrarians to be put to death and / or serve life imprisonment is clearly unacceptable

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 312. At 8:12pm on 07 Feb 2010, mrgrump wrote:

    What's the reason for scepticism of Climate Science, in UK we have had 2 cold winters when the climate experts said we would have mild wet winters, we had 3 poor summers, when the climate experts said we would have good "barbecue summers". I have travelled extensively lately across Europe and North America and it has been unsually cold wherever I have gone.

    I reckon one more year of getting it completely wrong will send the UK public even more sceptical.

    The Met office are off to a good start! in December they said 2010 will be one of the warmest ever, its not looking too good that one!

    Now I know what the climate experts will say about the upper atmosphere sattelite temp readings, and el nino etc. and that it is warmer, but if this stuff doesn't relate at all to the temperature we all experience, then perhaps the experts are not as expert as they think.

    Complain about this comment

  • 313. At 8:23pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @manysummits #224

    Yes thanks. Would comment more, but it isn't helpful to the debate here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 314. At 8:23pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @RobWansbeck

    He didn't give precise locations. Just "in Antarctica" and "several research stations".

    Complain about this comment

  • 315. At 8:23pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @blunderbunny #289

    Cheers for that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 316. At 8:28pm on 07 Feb 2010, bandythebane wrote:

    Bonnie on #304 is right . There was a great deal of research into alternative sources of energy before.

    During the 1970's e.g. after the first "oil shock" there was a great deal of research into all sorts of novel ways of producing energy in general and transport fuels in particular.

    None of them was commercial, particularly after fosil fuel prices fell back in subsequent decades and the looming shortage so widely predicted did not happen.

    Nuclear at that time was thought to be cheap because no one had properly included the capital costs involved in building the stations and had badly underestimated the clean up costs.

    Now we seem to be planning an exercise in which we artificially restrict our access to fossil fuels to force reliance on dearer energy. However you cut the cake on this, the effect will be to make some of us perhaps feel morally better, but definitely to make all of us and especially the poor definitely poorer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 317. At 8:33pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #302 #303 #306
    (@MangoChutneyUKOK)

    Well, seeing as the FBI are involved in investigating death threats, yes, I would presume the police know about it.

    Meanwhile the public were informed some time ago

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/hacked-climate-emails-death-threats

    Complain about this comment

  • 318. At 8:37pm on 07 Feb 2010, fairlyopenmind wrote:

    I'm absolutely certain that we are living through climate change. We always have.

    What worries me is that a number of quality broadsheet newspapers suggested that when the University of East Anglia relocated, much of the original data about global temperature, collected o9ver the decades, was dumped.

    Without access to the basic, raw, data there is not way of examining how the various "adjustments" have been made, to arrive at the modified data which are fed into computer models.

    Models are not created in a vacuum. But raw data ware collected and should be available for everybody to examine whether the "adjustments" stand up to scrutiny.

    What I'd like the UEA to publish is the whole body of raw data, so other scientists could examine and potentially challenge the "interprative" elements that were fed into the models.

    I've been around modellers. It is very hard to build a model in a complete vacuum. If data are introduced (after modification), my concern is that outcomes are more selective than predictive.

    I don't trust politicians to be the guardians of the climate debate, as there are very, very few with the scientific background to challange the "science". In this area, I'm not even sure I trust the scientists, as the "computer models" attempt to drag huge areas of science into a neat predictive outcome.

    If somebody told us why the Sahara became a desert when man-made CO2 generation was fairly minimal I could become less sceptical.

    Complain about this comment

  • 319. At 8:49pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @MangoChutneyUKOK #300

    I don't like Hansen's comments.

    But they don't apply to honest sceptics, only AGW believers masquerading as sceptics for short term financial gain:

    "CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."

    [from "June 23, 2008: Global Warming — Tipping Points"]
    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/

    Complain about this comment

  • 320. At 9:02pm on 07 Feb 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    Manysummits:

    With each new energy source the living conditions for people has improved yet others think the replacement of fossil fuels will somehow dimisih their lifestyle. Not based on anything other than what they believe. The discussions are getting old and the sides have been taken with few moving. I have noticed some enter and try to educate themselves and they seem to come down on the side of AGW. You can separate the political right agendas and those who think supporting big business soehow benefits and the future is the problem of someone else. Science is always an accepted position until something else is discovered or understood. The inability in the West to reach concensus will be an anchor holding back progress while the East moves forward. China just makes things, India is investing in minds and technolgy development. Both are corrupt but moving forward. Maybe people will shake off their disillusionment and understand that the only thing the global economy has done is pit peoples against each other while wealth moves the pawns on the board. Of all the money that has been made the poor and working classes have benefited little in real terms. As the middle class is the engine of the machine the arrogance of the bankers has severely damaged that engine with their theft of retirements and investments...the wealthly always think they can take a little more and are surprised when people respond after they have crossed the line. Like the man who hits his dog, he is surprised when he is bitten. They are all sitting around waiting for the game to begin again but they have no ideas about how to make that happen. They have protected the rich but no one else. Has happened a hundred times before.

    Complain about this comment

  • 321. At 9:05pm on 07 Feb 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    jr4412;

    "MarcusAureliusII #282.

    "I'm more convinced than ever that the entire thing is no more than a huge hoax. Whatever it is, it is not science. Not by any definition of the term I accept."

    why bother? many of your posts to BBC weblogs are so rabidly anti-European, I'm certain you wouldn't accept anything, no matter what, simply because of the European connection."

    So now to reject the arguments of people who lie, hide facts, won't defend what was said when it is uncovered and revealed for the whole world to hear is to be anti-European while to accept them is to be pro European. If that is the definition then put me down firmly in the anti-European camp. Clearly there is a connection in your mind so let's be clear about what it means to be pro European. I'm glad you said it yourself. I've been saying exactly that myself all along. Glad you at least finally got it right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 322. At 9:06pm on 07 Feb 2010, Argent Pur wrote:

    Global Warming is a scam created by the Financial Elite behind the Banks and Energy Companies who control our so called Democratic Governments in the UK and US.

    Is it any coincidence that the business of Carbon Credit's and profit arose from a desire to save the earth. There is enough technology in the world to convert to clean energy using wind, solar, wave and geothermal power but they wont do it so they can hold us all to ransom through the oil industry and its knock on effect on transport costs.

    Look at the company Halliburton, what it does, why it won contracts to rebuild Iraq after the US bombed its infrastructure in its war on terror. Then ask yourself why Dick Cheney is on its board and what he stood to gain from the US going into Iraq.




    Complain about this comment

  • 323. At 9:16pm on 07 Feb 2010, ManBearPig4 wrote:

    New study using satellite data: Alaskan glacier melt overestimated
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/07/new-study-using-satellite-data-alaskan-glacier-melt-overestimated/#more-16138

    Claim That Sea Level Is
    Rising Is a Total Fraud
    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]


    Complain about this comment

  • 324. At 9:22pm on 07 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #317 JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    "Meanwhile the public were informed some time ago

    "http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/hacked-climate-emails-death-threats"

    The public were told by the Guardian that Phil Jones said he had received death threats.

    Is there anything better than the Guardian's mere repetition of Phil Jones's own claim that he had received death threats?

    Apparently it's quite common for people who make death threats to claim that they have themselves been threatened by death threats, so obviously we need more than his word for it, and some better form of evidence than the Guardian's mere repetion of his word for it.

    Death threats are extremely serious. We need to know more. Please tell me more.

    Complain about this comment

  • 325. At 9:49pm on 07 Feb 2010, Country-Bumpkin wrote:

    #20 FergalR
    I've had a look at some of these and so far they don't seem to be that sceptical. I'd say sceptical in some minor aspects is more accurate. There's also papers which consist solely of some response to criticism which look as if they've been included just to boost the numbers. I'm not sure how relevant papers such as "An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers" were to moving the science forward.

    The rest is just the old conspiracy theory angle. Well, if it is, it's one hell of a conspiracy - one going back 30 years and more. It even involves some contrarians themselves (I hesitate to call them sceptics because I think for most of the climatologists commonly quoted as sceptics, the position is more complex). Lindzen is cited in the 1979 Charney et al paper I mentioned and Christy and Spencer's own results show warming.

    #24 bowmanthebard
    See #20 FergalR apparently.

    Complain about this comment

  • 326. At 9:56pm on 07 Feb 2010, D_H_Wilko wrote:

    "Apparently it's quite common for people who make death threats to claim that they have themselves been threatened by death threats, so obviously we need more than his word for it, and some better form of evidence than the Guardian's mere repetion of his word for it."

    Who did Phil Jones threaten with death?

    Complain about this comment

  • 327. At 10:08pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #324

    Um, perhaps you trust the Mail more.

    "Two plain clothes officers arrived in an unmarked car in the afternoon and took Professor Phil Jones to Norfolk Police's headquarters in nearby Wymondham to give a statement.

    Sources said the interview concerned the theft of emails from the university and alleged death threats since the contents of the emails were released, adding he was being treated as a 'victim of crime' rather than a suspect in any criminal investigation.

    Detective Superintendent Julian Gregory added: 'He is one of the people assisting police with their enquiries.'"


    The information does not appear to be from Jones

    "The professor refused to comment at his detached home in Wicklewood, a few miles outside Norwich."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232722/Professor-climate-change-scandal-helps-police-enquiries-researchers-banned.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 328. At 10:08pm on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Mango says at:- # 310
    ‘…News of the death of Alaskan Glaciers has been greatly exaggerated..’
    And posts this:-
    http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1692.htm

    Clearly he didn’t read the last paragraph which says:-

    ‘..Moreover, the spectacular acceleration in mass loss since the mid 1990s, corresponding to a contribution of 0.25 to 0.30 mm/year to sea-level rise, is not in question and proves to be a worrying indication of future sea-level rise…’

    You see Mango at #274 you said :-

    ‘…i would have to accept CO2 is the primary driver of global warming to consider it odd, and since there is no evidence to support such a claim, i don’t think it is odd..’

    You are constantly filtering out from your mind all the evidence for the strong correlation between rising levels of CO2 and anthropogenic global warming. For months you have done the same thing over and over again, no matter what observations are presented by disparate scientific disciplines.
    Did you see the item on the Canadian Wolverine for example, or the recent surge in the rate of tree growth in California, or the melting of ice observed on the Tibetan plateau. All these parts, and many, many more, in the jig-saw, on top of satellite data and the ground based instrument data, not to mention the computer modelling of future scenarios by many different climatic research centres around the world.

    So I would ask you again, at what threshold of evidence will you become convinced that such a problem exists?
    And if no amount of evidence is enough then, as I said before, it seems a little bit more than odd.



    Complain about this comment

  • 329. At 10:22pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @DHWilko #326

    Phil Jones himself. Although that's bowmanthebard's interpretation and wording. See earlier posts.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8502823.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 330. At 10:25pm on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Ghostofsichuan at #320
    Your summary is very neat and the man and his dog is an excellent allegory of how people tend to learn nothing until they are hit by the metaphorical truck.
    I saw a woman once in Australia poke a sleeping kangaroo with a stick because she wanted to see it ‘do’ something. When it awoke, it struck out with its clawed toe and caught the woman on the shin.
    Maybe she learned something, I don’t know.
    Or maybe she just blamed the Kangaroo.

    I think, as a species, we blame the Kangaroo.

    Complain about this comment

  • 331. At 10:27pm on 07 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #327 JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    "Um, perhaps you trust the Mail more."

    You know me well enough to know I trust the Mail less than the Guardian, and it too merely reports what he said and what the police did.

    The police are obviously duty-bound to investigate any claim of law-breaking -- from accusations of rape to accusations of terrorism. There are many false accusations. The mere fact that the police are investigating such an accusation does not imply that there has been anything more than an accusation.

    I'd like to know what evidence we have -- apart from Phil Jones's own claim -- that he recieved death threats?

    Complain about this comment

  • 332. At 10:40pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #331

    "... and it too merely reports what he said and ..."

    Did you read the whole of my #327?

    "The professor refused to comment at his detached home in Wicklewood, a few miles outside Norwich."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232722/Professor-climate-change-scandal-helps-police-enquiries-researchers-banned.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 333. At 10:46pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #331

    Sorry

    I did not read the whole of your comment. Whereas you read the whole of mine.

    /very dirty pot

    Complain about this comment

  • 334. At 11:20pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #331

    You are right. Perhaps he lied to the police to trick the police into getting him public sympathy. Or perhaps he lied to the newspapers about the police.

    Erm, except perhaps both the police and the newspapers might have thought of that, and checked. It's in their interest to be seen to get the truth.

    The Mail's reference to "sources" appears to refer to police and uses very police like language, and is followed by a quote from a police officer. And Jones was not talking at the time.

    Then the Guardian refers to the FBI. Why would the Norfolk police get the FBI involved if the police didn't have decent evidence of the threats?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/hacked-climate-emails-death-threats
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232722/Professor-climate-change-scandal-helps-police-enquiries-researchers-banned.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 335. At 00:09am on 08 Feb 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    RE:-

    "319. At 8:49pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @MangoChutneyUKOK #300

    I don't like Hansen's comments.

    But they don't apply to honest sceptics, only AGW believers masquerading as sceptics for short term financial gain:"

    Firstly, Jane, Mango like many of the contributors on this site, doesn't like anything that doesn't support his perceptions. The sure sign of a "closed mind"

    However I would like to add to your concept of "honest sceptics" of which I am quite happy to acknowledge there are many out there who can claim the title "honest"

    On the other hand there are many who, for whatever reason (and I don't actually agree with you here that financial gain is always that reason)who are very happy to join on the "sceptic" bandwagon.

    Many years ago when (for a brief period of my life) I became involved in "pure" research as against applied research, I was asked (he who pays the piper etc.) to investigate a certain chemical reaction. My first responsibility was to investigate ALL the current information and published literature on this particular topic.

    In the 1960's there was no internet and no search engines etc and this period (to me) was boring and very time consuming. In the end after manually searching in the libraries of "Chem Abstracts" etc. I came up with only 4 papers and only one of them was relevant.

    That paper said the reaction we were looking for was not possible.

    My job was to become "sceptical" and prove (which I did) that it was.

    This is "honest sceptism" But requires that the "potential" sceptic evaluates the information that is under question and then demonstrates where it is wrong in a scientific manner.

    To do just this, the "honest" sceptic must first be prepared to read that information and to have the knowledge and expertise to evaluate it.

    Some time ago, on this site, Mango claimed to have "evaluated the case for AGW (not quite in those words) and FOUND IT WANTING."

    So I posted a link to the very long list of papers (yes, some a bit dubious!!!!) that IPCC Working Group 1 AR4 referenced to support their assessment to enable him to carry out his own (and those last two words are important) evaluation.

    So far deadly silence.

    So what actually happens?

    Many of the so-called sceptics are only too happy to let others do the hard graft (because that is what it is) for them. Then they read an article in the media which appeals to their point of view (ignoring at the same time anything that doesn't) which directs them to some website or other source of "evaluation" and promptly announce......"See, I told you so! This proves it!)

    This is not "SCEPTISM". This is "INDOCTRINATION"

    So, Jane, in my considered opinion, most of the "self-professed sceptics " ON THIS SITE are not there for financial gain (ie they have not been paid directly or even indirectly by big oil or whatever)but are genuine people who for whatever reason have allowed themselves to become indoctrinated and that's where the "professional sceptics" come in.

    Today this world suffers from "overload syndrome" and it's getting worse. There is so much information available and so much more appearing on a daily basis, it is impossible to keep up with it all.

    So we rely on "elsewhere" to "filter it out" for us without realising that some of those we choose to trust have themselves been indoctrinated.

    Personal experience recently here in NZ (others may relate to this in their own country).

    Some months back, Finance Companies were going to the wall taking with them the Millions of dollars of savings of investors, many elderly.

    I had a small sum of money that wasn't immediately needed and I considered "investing" in one of the few remaining companies. This company frequently advertised on our local Television channels and used a very well respected, former Media personality, as their "front man". This fellow was well liked so many people put their trust in "him". I would have too but fortunately for me while prevaricating I used most of those funds. Yes, that company went down too, taking more millions of investors dollars with them. I often wonder how guilty that "front man" feels today.

    When we switch on our TVs, the commercials and "Infomercials" take up as much if not more time than the programs we want to watch.We have little awareness of just how much "indoctrination" has taken over our lives.

    Most of us are floundering around not knowing who to trust.

    A GOOD education (ie the summation of ALL our life's experiences) helps us to filter out SOME of the Indoctrination.

    Complain about this comment

  • 336. At 00:15am on 08 Feb 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Re:-
    "330. At 10:25pm on 07 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Ghostofsichuan at #320
    Your summary is very neat and the man and his dog is an excellent allegory of how people tend to learn nothing until they are hit by the metaphorical truck.

    Etc, Etc,. Etc,.

    Maybe she learned something, I don’t know.
    Or maybe she just blamed the Kangaroo.

    I think, as a species, we blame the Kangaroo."

    Couldn't agree more!!!!!!!!!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 337. At 00:38am on 08 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    \\\ Words are Not Enough ///

    Richard Alley
    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
    http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/vet/news-events/news/2009-memorial-lecture
    ----------------

    I have just today watched both men's lectures.

    Very different styles - very different venues.

    Richard Alley's lecture is very much cutting edge science, and I suspect, almost unintelligible to all but the initiated.

    Richard Leakey's lecture was, I thought, very powerful and well thought out, addressing, as it does, the policy field and the concerned citizen.

    I noted that Dr. Leakey showed no slides - very refreshing.

    The question now is the same as before - how much time do we have to effect change?

    I think Dr. Lorna Casselton, foreign secretary of the Royal Society, summed things up nicely in a recent address:

    " ...there are no simple questions, let alone answers, and irrational opinion often rules over rational facts. Without sound scientific advice, governments have no hope of solving issues from nuclear weapons to food security, disease and energy."

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527436.000-the-united-nations-of-science-why-we-need-it.html
    ---------------------------

    It feels to me like it is time to move on.

    A mountaineer, a pilot, a human being, often expresses himself, or herself, in movement, both literally and metaphorically.

    From where I stand, and as I speak,

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 338. At 00:58am on 08 Feb 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    RE my comments on Indoctrination. I am fully aware that my comments can be applied to BOTH sides of the argument and will be only too happy to agree with anyone choosing to point this out.

    How many participants on this site chose to follow this link in an earlier contribution from Richard?

    "UPDATE: The UNFCCC has now released details of submissions so far received. Top stats are: 55 countries, accounting for 78% of global emissions from energy use.

    According to Yvo de Boer:

    "The commitment to confront climate change at the highest level is beyond doubt."

    See our news story here."

    See if you can find ONE letter from any of those 55 Countries that DOESN"T support the need to take action. The main question appears to be, what action and how much?

    Complain about this comment

  • 339. At 01:16am on 08 Feb 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    294. At 6:38pm on 07 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:
    @shadorne #281 By the way, that comment will be embarrassing your fellow sceptics

    Jane,

    I do not understand. Please clarify what I said that was either incorrect or callous?

    The article appeared on a link on the FRONT PAGE of BBC website. Please show me an example of an interview with a skeptic which is given the same treatment. My point is the extreme bias perpetrated by the BBC - specifically, Phil Jones being disgraced just emphasizes the depths that the BBC are willing to sink to in order to promote "man-made warming" propaganda. Since the whole climategate scandal broke in November - please name one skeptic that has been interviewed by the BBC?

    Presenting the case for the skeptics would be part of a balanced news media - the BBC is patently NOT balanced - that was the point I was making. I hope Dr Jones gets over this difficult time in his life - nobody likes to be exposed for manipulating science and breaking laws in the way he has been. However, these crimes are but minor abuses, and are probably all too common in science circles these days. If it was not such an important subject with many Billions of taxpayers' money at stake then none of this would ever have made the news and he still have his highly influential job.



    Complain about this comment

  • 340. At 01:34am on 08 Feb 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    "If you want to board an aeroplane, but were told by a large group of aeronautical engineers that the plane was 90% certain to crash upon take-off, would you listen to them, or to a small group, comprising a PR consultant, a botanist and a plumber, who presented as evidence an article from Readers Digest magazine? "

    I wished I'd thought that one up myself but unfortunately I had to plagiarize it (being a Tom Lehrer fan from my youth)

    Of course................no names....no pack-drill.

    Complain about this comment

  • 341. At 01:55am on 08 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @shadorne #339

    "Please show me an example of an interview with a skeptic which is given the same treatment."

    Look, the front page thing isn't the big deal. However the death threats, health problems and suicidal feelings are.

    If you know of a sceptic in a similar position then please tell us. I am aware of decent sceptics also being on the receiving end of overzealous pro-AGW attitudes. I have been told appalling stories about people being scared to lose their jobs if they admit to being sceptics.

    But I have not heard of anything like the extremes Phil Jones is going through.

    Complain about this comment

  • 342. At 02:38am on 08 Feb 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    Jane: Look, the front page thing isn't the big deal.

    Huh? Not a single skeptic interview by the BBC since climategate broke out three months ago!

    And we get an interview with Dr Phil Jones on the front page of the BBC website where he gets to defend the science of "man-made global warming" - the very subject for which he is at the heart of a huge controversial storm?

    I ask any of you here - is there any clearer proof of a BBC reporting bias?

    This Dr Jones broke the law! Have any of you alarmists actually read the emails where efforts are made to control the peer review process?

    As I have asked many times before - what happened to ethics and where is the moral compass of the main stream media?

    Does Dr Jones get the same soft glove and kind treatment as Dr Pachauri by the BBC?

    Meanwhile Piers Corbyn is the subject of ridicule by Richard Black and the BBC! A one man show who gets the weather correct while the taxpayer funded, enormously expensive, Met Office consistently fails to do so.

    AMAZING!

    Complain about this comment

  • 343. At 03:00am on 08 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @shadorne #339

    "Since the whole climategate scandal broke in November - please name one skeptic that has been interviewed by the BBC?"

    Are you in the UK? Some of these clips won't work outside of the UK.

    Melanie Phillips on Question Time
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p36jw#p005c7sc

    Nigel Lawson on Question Time (not the first panel member to speak)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qllwk#p006702n

    Newsnight:

    Australia's Ian Plimer and Tony Abbott
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8500365.stm

    Not an interview as such but

    Andrew Neil's blog
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html

    This Week - Michael Portillo's moment of the week - starts 4:17
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qlhwj/This_Week_04_02_2010/

    Complain about this comment

  • 344. At 03:11am on 08 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @shadorne #342

    Do you really not get it? Phil Jones has received death threats. He has lost weight. He looks as if he has done the 10 year sentence for fraud some are demanding. He has felt suicidal.

    How does the BBC front page make up for that?

    Complain about this comment

  • 345. At 03:17am on 08 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    shadorne #339 #342

    More sceptics here

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8380451.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 346. At 03:26am on 08 Feb 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    Jane,

    I should be clear - my original post and subsequent reply are all referring to the BBC website. (This is quite clear in my original post)

    Complain about this comment

  • 347. At 03:30am on 08 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    shadorne #339 #342

    Marc Morano on Newsnight
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8400206.stm

    Phillip Stott on Today
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8394000/8394501.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 348. At 03:33am on 08 Feb 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    Jane,

    I feel so sorry for Dr Phil Jones it is simply awful what has happened. The poor man. I hope he gets better and recovers from his mental troubles. I hope they catch the irresponsible people making threats.

    I just don't see what this has to do with BBC bias? I mean Phil Jones is just one person. The BBC is read millions of people daily. We can discuss Phil's problems if you like but I did not bring these aspects up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 349. At 03:44am on 08 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @shadorne #346

    From your #281

    "Meanwhile, there has been absolutely no BBC coverage or interviews of skeptics.

    Not one interview since Climategate began - just a few secondhand mentions of the skeptics or references to the Guardian."


    You say secondhand mentions. You do realise that the offending Phil Jones interview is a secondhand mention, don't you. The interview was actually carried out by the Times.

    Extracts from the article

    "In an interview with the Sunday Times"
    and
    "He told the newspaper"
    and
    "He told the newspaper"

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8502823.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 350. At 03:52am on 08 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @shadorne #348

    OK, tone of my #349 looks a bit strong after your #348, our posts crossed in cyberspace.

    Although I am a little confused by your claim to not have brought the subject of Jones's problems up, they were the core subject of the problem article.

    Complain about this comment

  • 351. At 05:02am on 08 Feb 2010, Corbiere46 wrote:

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

  • 352. At 06:44am on 08 Feb 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Re:-

    11. At 8:29pm on 05 Feb 2010, Colonicus III wrote:

    "Its wierd that the less attention something gets the less doubt there is about the facts surrounding it. I think there needs to be some serious explination in this case though. To much weight has wrongly been given to the skeptics and deniers (hate using those words, but you know what they mean) by the media and the balance of comunication ability is stacked wildley in their favour.
    The debate never should have existed in the first place.
    I personaly blame the Internet, it has given credibility to those who are undeserving and forums such as this get populated by the angry minority who churn out false, incorrect and unfounded arguments without any recourse. The only thing that can be done is to explain or rebut them but all this does is start a debate where there should be no debate, which only makes the problem worse. "

    I had to trudge a long way back to find this but after the recent interlude between Jane and Shadorne, here's an alternative to the "explaining" (which they aren't the least bit interested in) or the "rebuttal" (which just encourages counter-rebuttal) so why not just ignore them!

    They hate being ignored which is why they contribute here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 353. At 06:58am on 08 Feb 2010, Bevan Dockery wrote:

    My comment at 142 received a response from infinity at 156. He or she claimed that it is possible to attribute causes to a temperature time series using already known formulae from physics. This must be great news for the British tax payer. As the IPCC knows all of the factors and variables involved in determining the cause of temperature changes there is no need for any further climate research and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia can be closed down. The staff can simply retire on the big-bucks they have accumulated in their pension fund from trading carbon credits.
    Furthermore my reference to the Urban Heat Island Effect was negated as not significant to global warming. That is the most obvious, measurable, repeatable man-made geographic warming effect is not significant for global warming. Perhaps the current global warming is a natural variation in the global climate as has happened repeatedly in the past. For example the Medieval Warm Period about 900 AD, the Roman Warm Period at about 100 BC and the Minoan Warm Period at about 1400 BC. Certainly there was no industrialization at these times, a much lower population and thus negligible man-made CO2. And before infinity jumps in to say that these events have not been shown to be worldwide, let me remind you that the last IPCC global predictions that I have seen exhibited increases of between 0.5 and 7.5 degrees C across the globe, ie not a constant effect everywhere.
    It has been interesting to see how often in the discussion, infinity has jumped in to give the IPCC line and ensure that the rest of us are not falling out of line. It reminds me a bit of George Orwell's 1984.

    Complain about this comment

  • 354. At 07:39am on 08 Feb 2010, David Hinks wrote:

    Rising skepticism is indeed a disturbing trend, though not nearly as disturbing as this:

    http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/02/05/tech-climate-arctic-ice.html

    No, the arctic ice is NoT recovering nicely as some of you seem to believe. I am no climatologist but I do have something for you to think about while you try to reconcile your cold winter with global warming. I live in Vancouver, B.C. Last winter was bitterly cold for us, down to -14C on the coast, and it lasted for an extended period of time and we had plenty of snow. This year has seen record warm temperatures no doubt due to the El Nino phenomenon. So you wonder how does global warming bring about a cold winter.

    Well, studies show that the arctic regions are warming at a faster rate than equatorial regions. Higher mean temperatures equate to more energy in the atmosphere. If the mean increase in energy is larger in the arctic regions than equatorial ones, then it stands to reason that arctic weather systems will be able to "push" farther south than normal. Hence, you get a taste of the "warmer", but still bitterly cold arctic air in areas not normally accustomed to it.

    I guess time will tell and we will see how many skeptics there are when enough Greenland ice melts and shuts down the North Atlantic Conveyor and England is plummeted into a deep chill, even though the planet is "warming".

    Think about it, if not for yourself then for your children, and theirs, and so on.

    And quit bickering about polls and such, much better to spend that human energy doing something positive. Dig up your lawn and plant some vegetables or something!

    Cheers

    Complain about this comment

  • 355. At 07:57am on 08 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #334 JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    "Why would the Norfolk police get the FBI involved if the police didn't have decent evidence of the threats?"

    Why would the Metropolitan police get Specialist Firearms Command (CO19) involved if the police didn't have decent evidence that Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrorist?

    The police have to investigate all accusations of crime. For example, if a woman accuses a man of rape, they have to investigate. However, some accusations of rape are false. So if a man is questioned by the police about a rape accusation, that is equally evidence that the man is a rapist, and evidence that he has been falsely accused of rape, and the mere fact of police involvement does not decide between the two.

    Similarly, being questioned about death threats is equally evidence that a man has received death threats, and evidence that he has made false allegations about receiving death threats, and the mere fact of police involvement does not decide between the two.

    Complain about this comment

  • 356. At 08:01am on 08 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #344 JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    "Do you really not get it? Phil Jones has received death threats."

    He has been questioned by the police in connection with death threats, which is not the same thing. We must not take mere police involvement to have the same evidential status as the outcome of a trial.

    Northern Ireland is filled with people who have been questioned by the police in connection with one thing or another. It's wrong to take their being questioned as a reliable sign of guilt.

    Complain about this comment

  • 357. At 08:19am on 08 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @thinkforyourself #328

    Clearly he didn’t read the last paragraph

    Ahh! The obligatory reference to AGW.

    You are constantly filtering out from your mind all the evidence for the strong correlation between rising levels of CO2 and anthropogenic global warming.

    Did you see the item on the Canadian Wolverine for example, or the recent surge in the rate of tree growth in California, or the melting of ice observed on the Tibetan plateau. All these parts, and many, many more, in the jig-saw, on top of satellite data and the ground based instrument data,


    Correlation doesn't prove causation. I read that the price of an American stamp has increased in line with global warming. Does that mean global warming is caused by american stamps?

    Where is the evidence that CO2 can cause significant warming which takes into account climate sensitivity? Where is the IPCC's unique signature of AGW? Please provide a link or the name of a paper, because I would be fascinated to read it.

    @xtragrumpymike2 #335

    Firstly, Jane, Mango like many of the contributors on this site, doesn't like anything that doesn't support his perceptions. The sure sign of a "closed mind"

    Did you read the context Mike? It was about alleged death threats on Phil Jones, which I said we should all condemn. In my opinion AGW'ers should also condemn Hansens trials for sceptics comment

    Some time ago, on this site, Mango claimed to have "evaluated the case for AGW (not quite in those words) and FOUND IT WANTING."

    So I posted a link to the very long list of papers (yes, some a bit dubious!!!!) that IPCC Working Group 1 AR4 referenced to support their assessment to enable him to carry out his own (and those last two words are important) evaluation.

    So far deadly silence.


    I have read up on CO2 / climate sensitivity and I cannot see how CO2 can raise the temperature significantly. I have access to many of the papers and it is simply not possible taking into account climate sensitivity. If I missed your post showing the list of papers, I apologise. Please repost and I will look at them.

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 358. At 09:13am on 08 Feb 2010, jon112dk wrote:

    340. At 01:34am on 08 Feb 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:
    "If you want to board an aeroplane, but were told by a large group of aeronautical engineers that the plane was 90% certain to crash upon take-off, would you listen to them, or to a small group, comprising a PR consultant, a botanist and a plumber, who presented as evidence an article from Readers Digest magazine? "
    ===============================================

    How about if you found out the aeronautical engineers were all being paid huge 'research grants' by a rival airline? The more you get frightened the more the rival airline earns. The more the engineers frighten you the more they get paid.

    How about if you found out that the engineers had all been emailing each other discussing how they could doctor the evidence to frighten you more effectively?

    What if the engineers told you their 'research' predicted the plane would steadily get hotter and hotter but when you looked at it with your own eyes it was covered in ice?

    What if the engineers now wanted you to not only stop flying on that plane but to give up your job and your car and your income and give all the money to the rival airline?

    Would you still believe the engineers then?

    Complain about this comment

  • 359. At 09:32am on 08 Feb 2010, lburt wrote:

    RE:Phil Jones

    I feel sorry for him about the death threats, I really do. Nobody should be threatening him physically.

    On the other hand, I honestly don't care one bit about any trauma caused by him being caught breaking FOI requests and found to have been involved in extremely dodgy science. If you cheat at least part way to the top it's a heck of a fall when people find out. If he's suicidal over THAT...he should have thought of it before he did it...just like every other criminal or scientist found to have fabricated or obfuscated findings.

    RE:BBC Bias
    Not sure if anyone mentioned it but they DID contact some well known skeptics (like anthony watts) for submissions. Its a step in the right direction at least. On the other hand they do continue to ignore the fact that a huge number of the alarmist "studies" (propaganda dressed up as "science") are being challenged now and tossed on the rubbish heap like the garbage they are. This SHOULD have been done ages ago. When this is all over with we'll likely be left with a "luke-warmer" version of global warming...yeah it's warmer and CO2 probably contributed to some extent, but not by crazy amounts...and that warming is generally better for the planet anyway.

    Complain about this comment

  • 360. At 09:43am on 08 Feb 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @JaneBasingstoke + few others

    "Why would the Norfolk police get the FBI involved if the police didn't have decent evidence of the threats?"

    Couldn't the FBI also be involved in the evasion of FOI requests? I believe that's considered to be a federal crime in the US, so it would naturally fall to the FBI to investigate?

    Do the UEA have any American affiliates that American FOI requests could have been filed with? Does anyone here know ?

    I guess the other option to consider is that they could just be helping with the computer based aspects of the crime.

    Complain about this comment

  • 361. At 09:48am on 08 Feb 2010, Dempster wrote:


    Do I feel sorry for Phil Jones, not really.

    Why? …… Truthful data interpretation and politics tend not mix well as Dr David Kelly found out.

    If Mr Jones was unaware of that, then he must have been naïve in the extreme, or not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 362. At 10:18am on 08 Feb 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    There is a lot of 'noise' on here about Phil Jones which appears to be cluttering up worthwhile discussion about the future, leave the bloke alone, lobbing stones is a worthless occupation.

    David at post 354,
    If what you are saying is right, how will we grow our vegetables in the future? Do we all move underground and grow mushrooms?

    Complain about this comment

  • 363. At 10:30am on 08 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #328 thinkforyourself wrote:

    "You are constantly filtering out from your mind all the evidence for the strong correlation between rising levels of CO2 and anthropogenic global warming."

    Speaking for myself, I find it very hard not to "filter out" any strong correlation because the evidence of my eyes and common sense speak so forcefully against it. A quick glance at the respective graphs of CO2 levels and global temperatures shows at best a very weak correlation.

    The idea that there is a strong correlation requires us to put our trust in a complicated machine:

    The hypothesis that is supposed to show there is a strong correlation is in effect too complicated for the human mind to encomposs, which is why computer models have to do it instead of human minds.

    In their book Godel, Escher, Bach Dennett and Hodstader ask the reader to imagine a very special sort of record player (of vinyl records) that plays a different tune from the one that was recorded. For example, with enough computer wizardry, a record of "Yankee Doodle Dandy" might emerge as "God Save the Queen". This is relevant for the present purposes, because computer climate models are supposed to be "tested" in effect by taking the early part of the climate record and playing the later part of the climate record. But obviously, the "wizardry in the machine" which is capable of producing the latter is merely an artifact of the machine!

    A simple hypothesis is more likely to be true than a complicated hypothesis: we should trust the human eye more than "wizardry" for producing artifacts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 364. At 11:38am on 08 Feb 2010, manysummits wrote:

    Hello David from Vancouver @ #354

    I'm from Calgary.

    The link you posted on David Barber's work is something I posted on a couple of months ago, before the Copenhagen Conference in December.

    As you will notice soon, if you have not already, the contrarians have an interesting memory, conveniently forgetting solid evidence posted to refute categorically their absurd statements. Often this selective memory loss occurs instantaneously - a phenomenon a psychologist would find intriguing, I imagine.

    In short, it is my opinion that in the main, you are not dealing with skeptics actually wondering who is right, but with a lobby completely impervious to rational argument and empirical evidence.

    Welcome to the blogosphere.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 365. At 12:09pm on 08 Feb 2010, jazbo wrote:

    You want to know why people are getting sceptical Richard? Its because the BBC posts unsubstantiated nonsense like this as fact:

    "Galapagos sea lions head for warm Peru waters"
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8503397.stm

    Which is destroyed in detail here:

    http://blackswhitewash.com/2010/02/08/galapagos-sea-lions-head-for-warm-peru-waters/

    Complain about this comment

  • 366. At 12:24pm on 08 Feb 2010, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    The BBC seems to be suffering from institutionalised alarmism:-

    1 Hockey Stick Graph Discredited?

    The science behind climate change is robust.

    2 Leaked Emails demonstrate discreditable behaviour by self named climate scientists.

    The actions of a few scientists do not detract from the fast majority of scientists who show climate change is real and is happening now.

    3 Glaciers in the Himalayas will not disappear by 2035 the IPPC admits.

    Like all organisations the IPPC has made mistakes surprise surprise. The science is robust.

    4 Reports of increase in activity due man made climate change shown to be false.

    This does note detract from ——— fill in as you please.

    5 “Parts of Africa will be producing 50% less food by 2020″ Shown to false.

    This does note detract from ——— fill in as you please.

    6 Snow is just now a thing of the past

    This does note detract from ——— fill in as you please.

    Finally we are all flatearthers, who says so First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister of the UK. Who in effects appoints the board of the MET Office and the members of the BBC Trust.

    Move on Richard its all over the green gravy train is being brought to a halt.

    Complain about this comment

  • 367. At 12:39pm on 08 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @shadorne #348

    Sorry for calling you callous, shadorne. Your reaction at #348 is a credit to your side of the debate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 368. At 12:52pm on 08 Feb 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Lest we forget the quality of debate prior to climategate, copenhagen and the ipcc, drip drip gre literature, non peer reviewed dtories:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jan/27/james-delingpole-climate-change-denial?showallcomments=true#start-of-comments

    "Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial."
    George Monbiot, The Guardian, 21 September 2006


    Someone remind George again:

    Their is Climate Change (ie what the planet does)
    And Man Made Climate change (unproved theory, with future predictions based on computer runs)




    Complain about this comment

  • 369. At 12:59pm on 08 Feb 2010, neocommonsense wrote:

    The most fustrating thing about the whole climate change subject is the almost religious zeal with which a majority with negligible knowledge about science, or access to any of the source data, ascribe to the story. Why are these people so utterly convinced and self-righteous? It's like the film "Happy Feet" in reverse, with so-called experts telling the rest that changes are due to some mysterious hand unhappy with their behaviour.

    My scepticism rises in direct proportion to the number of people who are parroting what they've been told without having looked at any data themselves. Why do they do it??? Think for yourselves please - you're not intellectually inferior. Do your observations match what you're being told? Is the source data and evidence readily available to look at yourself? What unknowns, errors, contradictions and ambiguities are there in it? Are you convinced there are no hidden agendas by the so-called experts? Have they shown themselves to be beyond reproach in their rigour and honesty? Are you sure there can be no other explanations? How convincing are the assumptions and modelling they are using? What precedents are there for pundits to be totally wrong? How much serious, objective, scientific debate is there in the media? Do you think it's foolish or suspicious that anyone who disagrees with the trendy opinion is branded an uncaring or apathetic fool, just like they're kicking a puppy? Rather convenient to stifle any debate about the evidence eh?

    And BBC, please employ an equal number of climate change sceptics as climate change sympathisers on your staff - you've no business taking sides in this debate. Just show people the evidence to look at!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 370. At 1:12pm on 08 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @xtragrumpymike2

    Yes. I made a serious misjudgement.

    I didn't scroll down far enough in the Times article. Instead I made a hot headed assumption. I was expressing a minority opinion as if it was obvious.

    This latest story just shows how bad the gulf has got between the two sides.

    Complain about this comment

  • 371. At 1:14pm on 08 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    If the "general public" are now becoming increasingly convinced that climate change doesn't represent a threat, then there is one conclusion to which I am inescapably drawn:

    I want to hire whichever PR company the oil companies are using to do the PR for my company.

    Complain about this comment

  • 372. At 1:26pm on 08 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @xtragrumpmike2 #335 & me@357

    So I posted a link to the very long list of papers (yes, some a bit dubious!!!!) that IPCC Working Group 1 AR4 referenced to support their assessment to enable him to carry out his own (and those last two words are important) evaluation.

    So far deadly silence.


    Mike,

    I've been through all your available posts and can't find a very long list of papers. It could be that it wasn't addressed to me (I searched your posts for my name) and I have missed it.

    Please post a link to your post with the list of papers and I will do my best to read and discuss them with you.

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 373. At 1:29pm on 08 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @manysummits #364

    In short, it is my opinion that in the main, you are not dealing with skeptics actually wondering who is right, but with a lobby completely impervious to rational argument and empirical evidence.

    That's something else you are wrong about, but please present the evidence that proves CO2 is in reality causing global warming

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 374. At 1:50pm on 08 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Thanks to xtragrumpymike2 #352 for bringing my attention back to this:

    #11 Colonicus III wrote:
    "The debate never should have existed in the first place.
    "all this does is start a debate where there should be no debate"

    We reach truth through debate and disagreement. It is through the collision of opposed viewpoints that we find reasons for and against our beliefs.

    If believers in AGW hope to "win" with the above sort of closed-minded authoritarianism, I assure you, you have another think coming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 375. At 2:02pm on 08 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    #373, Mango

    When you say "the evidence that proves CO2...", I assume you mean "the evidence that supports the hypothesis that CO2..."?

    You don't ever prove anything in science, all you do is come up with a hypothesis and then find evidence that either supports it or refutes it. But you knew that, right?

    Anyway, you might want to have a look here for an answer to your question. To summarise it briefly, the evidence is as follows. We know that CO2 levels are increasing. We know that global temperature is increasing. We know the physical properties of CO2 are capable of causing greenhouse warming. That doesn't prove that CO2 is causing global warming, of course, but it is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that it is. Moreover, there is no other obvious explanation of the data.

    Complain about this comment

  • 376. At 2:07pm on 08 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #371 DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    "I want to hire whichever PR company the oil companies are using to do the PR for my company."

    The "PR company" doing the most effective job to convince the "general public" that climate change doesn't represent a threat is the BBC and George Monbiot. Their relentless political correctness, endless moralistic finger-wagging, and inevitable reminders after every mere mention of scepticism that "none of this undermines the science of climate change"... yuck!

    Decent, open-minded people have the perfectly reasonable, common sense expectation that we need a debate and we should hear both sides of the argument. The more the BBC and Nanny Monbiot shut us up and tell us that we must on no account question AGW or think for ourselves -- "don't try this at home, children!" -- the more we sceptics have our PR done for us.

    Thank you, Richard Black, for your own contribution to the sceptics' victory!

    Complain about this comment

  • 377. At 2:08pm on 08 Feb 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Even the BBC might find this amusing/scary in the same thought......

    AUDI's Super Bowl 'Green Police' advert..
    http://www.climategate.com/even-audi-knows-the-green-police-are-coming

    Think about this, and how many MILLIONS of americans will have seen this superbowl commercial!

    Audi are coming over all green and environmentally friendly?!
    Or are they?!

    it might keep the man made gloabl warming theorists happy....

    But are the sneakingly admirable germans, sending a message to the american public..

    We know man made co2 is not causing global warming, but we are stuck in the EU, and this is the only way to sneak out the message you are being had, This is what may be coming 'Green' - UN police, telling americans what they can do.

    See UN's Global governance strategy (draft copenhagen)

    As the Audi, accelerates off at the end, hardly keeping the mpg down...

    I really think, someone at AUDI have just sent a massive 'deliberate' subliminal message to the USA.
    I bet the ADD agency when they were told to go with it, thought they were a part of the eco-green cascade...

    And I personally, would love to save all the tigers, stop the pollution of the seas, stop chopping down rainforest to grow bio-fuels, that still produce co2 when burnt, etc,etc,etc.

    Go AUDI !

    Well that's my take on it ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 378. At 2:29pm on 08 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @MangoChutneyUKOK #357

    Jim Hansen is doubly wrong.

    Firstly he thinks that the Big Oil CEOs are AGW believers masquerading as sceptics.

    This belief is because there is clear evidence that the Big Oil sceptics have been told by their own scientists that the IPCC's version of AGW is true. I have no reason to doubt this evidence.

    But he is making a wrong assumption. The Big Oil CEOs trust their own scientists to be sincere. But they won't trust them to be correct. They almost definitely regard their own scientists as too trusting of the IPCC.

    Secondly he has overreacted.

    Even if they are AGW believers masquerading as sceptics, the Big Oil CEOs have done what they have done because of their position. I think Hansen had forgotten how much the public likes mauling its scapegoats.

    Complain about this comment

  • 379. At 2:30pm on 08 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @DisgustedOfMitcham2 #375

    Forgetting semantics.

    To summarise it briefly, the evidence is as follows. We know that CO2 levels are increasing. We know that global temperature is increasing. We know the physical properties of CO2 are capable of causing greenhouse warming. That doesn't prove that CO2 is causing global warming, of course, but it is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that it is. Moreover, there is no other obvious explanation of the data.

    My response:

    CO2 levels increasing – agreed
    Temperature increasing – agreed
    Physical properties – agreed

    However, none of what you say or your link takes into account climate sensitivity. As I have repeatedly said on Richards blog, sensitivity calculations that do not take into account water vapour, especially clouds, tend to calculate climate sensitivity to be high. Calculations and observational evidence that do take water vapour into account show climate sensitivity to be low.

    Doubling of CO2 will raise the temperature by ~1.1C with an increase or decrease depending on the climate sensitivity assumed by calculation / observation. My argument is calculation alone without taking into account water vapour / clouds is simply incorrect, therefore the calculation / observation evidence which include water vapour / clouds is more likely to be correct.

    Unless somebody has a link to a paper that shows high sensitivity, which includes water vapour / clouds (which are an overall negative feedback), calculations showing high climate sensitivity cannot be correct.

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 380. At 2:39pm on 08 Feb 2010, Vic Smith wrote:

    If a large proportion of the British population is confused over the difference between 'weather' and 'climate, part of the blame must be accepted by climate-change activists.
    When the UK was recently enjoying a series of mild winters, this was repeatedly and loudly claimed as proof of rising global temperatures. Activists did not mention then that weather in the UK is entirely dependent on wind direction.
    If anyone has now applied the previous logic and assumed that cold weather in Britain indicates falling global temperatures, activists have absolutely no right to complain.
    It really is time for activists to show some humility and stop insulting everyone who disagrees with them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 381. At 2:43pm on 08 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #375 DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    "We know that CO2 levels are increasing. We know that global temperature is increasing."

    We know that temperatures increase and decrease frequently for no apparent reason. We know that the largest scale, the Earth is in one of its coolest phases. So we know that much, much more than just CO2 levels are involved in determining global temperatures.

    "We know the physical properties of CO2 are capable of causing greenhouse warming. That doesn't prove that CO2 is causing global warming, of course, but it is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that it is."

    It isn't "entirely" consistent with it, because although the CO2 levels have been rising pretty much monotonically, temperatures haven't been rising anything like monotonically. They've been going up and down, like they always have.

    "You don't ever prove anything in science, all you do is come up with a hypothesis and then find evidence that either supports it or refutes it. But you knew that, right?"

    And what supports it or refutes it is a test. But you knew that, right?

    One thing we emphatically do not know is what global temperatures have been like with any accuracy before about 40 years ago, as our means of investigating such things are extremely unreliable. "Proxy" data are too "theoretical" to count as observational data, and even the genuinely observational data (from recently made, accurate thermometers) are not the results of tests.

    Complain about this comment

  • 382. At 2:43pm on 08 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    #376:

    The best PR is done subtly, without anyone realising that they are falling for PR. What's going on here is the classic FUD tactics, as used by the tobacco industry to try to convince people that smoking doesn't really cause lung cancer.

    And to judge from the opinion polls and the comments of many posters on this blog, it's working a treat.

    As for "we need a debate and we should hear both sides of the argument", that's all very well in theory, but the climate sceptics' arguments tend to be about conspiracy theories rather than about a rational debate of the science. If you have evidence that there is no such thing as AGW, then perhaps you could present it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 383. At 2:44pm on 08 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #376

    "we need a debate and we should hear both sides of the argument"

    We don't need a debate.

    We had the debate. You sceptics won back in 2000. No political action on climate change. None.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/924574.stm

    What you deem authoritarian is nothing but gaffes, platitudes and face saving. And scrambling after dangerous free lunch mirages like carbon trading.

    Complain about this comment

  • 384. At 2:46pm on 08 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    #376:

    Oh, and one more thing: if you believe that the BBC are seriously telling you that you "must on no account question AGW or think for ourselves", what exactly do you think is happening on this blog?

    Complain about this comment

  • 385. At 2:52pm on 08 Feb 2010, whoever wrote:

    I think there's much more to it than the points you raise, least of all coverage like this:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/08/andrew_montford_interview/

    Complain about this comment

  • 386. At 3:18pm on 08 Feb 2010, Colonicus III wrote:

    Re:374 bowmanthebard

    Thank you for taking my statement out of context. The classic calling card of a person unable to form a coherent response.

    I would never suggest that debate is a bad thing or that people should never question authority.
    What I was suggesting, as you will have seen if you read the whole post, is that in this case we are having a falsly balanced debate due to the unfortunate media and internet coverage incorrect and unfounded anti-AGW arguments are given.

    I totally agree that we reach truth through debate and disagreement. The problem is that it should be 'informed' and 'reasoned' debate and disagreement, not the torrent of abuse and pseudo-science that is thrown around usually by one side more than the other.

    I take issue with the use of the word belief, it implies faith which in turn implies a blind acceptance of one view. This implies that the debate cannont possibley end with both sides in agreement or with one side accepting the aguements posed by the other. I appreciate that this isn't what you were intending but it does happen more than it should, esspecially by those attempting to paint AGW 'believer' as some sort of creationist or religious fanatical group.

    On your final point, we are not attempting to 'win'.
    You don't 'win' in science.
    We are just trying to explain and inform, to put the very important message accross that we are most likley causing irreprable damage to the planets climate in a way which can be avoided.
    There should be debate about this issue, but not the way it is being conducted. Internet forums, advertising campaigns and uninformed media misrepresenations do nothing to advance the science. Where the dabate should be taking place is in the scientific world, with people who know what they are talking about.

    How can the debate we are having be good for science when us 'AGW believers' have to explain even the most basic science to some of the people trying to make the case against AGW?

    For example, the number of times I've had to explain the ice cube in a glass of water experiment to people makes me dispair for the future of our country and species. It's so fundamentally flawed as to be laughable, but seems to get the same level of attention as quite reasonable predictions.

    Any scientific debate should be left to the scientists otherwise the deabte moves away from the real issues and gets bogged down by repeated explination of the simpler points.

    Complain about this comment

  • 387. At 3:26pm on 08 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #382 DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    "As for "we need a debate and we should hear both sides of the argument", that's all very well in theory, but the climate sceptics' arguments tend to be about conspiracy theories rather than about a rational debate of the science."

    Now look at your own message, and compare it with the one that precedes it. Who has the conspiracy theory, and who is giving rational reasons for his own position?

    Complain about this comment

  • 388. At 3:29pm on 08 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #384 DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    "if you believe that the BBC are seriously telling you that you "must on no account question AGW or think for ourselves", what exactly do you think is happening on this blog?"

    What's happening on this blog is that people who do not work for the BBC are expressing their own opinions. What the BBC tell us is what BBC reporters say elsewhere (such as in Richard Black's article which precedes the discussion among the non-BBC people).

    Complain about this comment

  • 389. At 3:51pm on 08 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    #387:

    I refer you to #375.

    Complain about this comment

  • 390. At 3:57pm on 08 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #386 Colonicus III wrote:

    "I totally agree that we reach truth through debate and disagreement. The problem is that it should be 'informed' and 'reasoned' debate and disagreement, not the torrent of abuse and pseudo-science that is thrown around usually by one side more than the other."

    I see -- so you want a debate, as long as you find it agreeable to your own tastes and opinions?

    Not good enough. No one is entitled to act as a censor to "filter out" opinions that he regards as "uninformed" or "unreasonable", for reasons that should be obvious to you.

    If it isn't obvious to you, I suggest you read JS Mill's On Liberty.

    Complain about this comment

  • 391. At 3:58pm on 08 Feb 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #386 Colonicus
    i think you'll find regular contrarian posters (like bowman, mango etc) have not changed their basic approach over at least a year (for some of them). the memes change but it's always the same objective. to be fair, i (and many with my pro-scientific view) haven;t changed either, but of course that's for a good reason :o)

    so in general i post here for a good old bish, bash, bosh (which can be fun when taken in th eright spirit) and for the few genuine non-decideds that float in here now and again.

    however, your points are 100% relevant so keep them coming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 392. At 3:59pm on 08 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @sensiblegrannie

    Guilty. And I am very sorry. I made some idiot assumptions and didn't scroll far enough down the Times article to get the full picture.

    Complain about this comment

  • 393. At 4:02pm on 08 Feb 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #386 Now if that is not "calling the pot black" after years of AGW abuse, the science is settled, deniers, being acused of being mentally ill and even some nutter saying he can identify the gene, been threated with jail,murdered in our beds, acussed of crimes against humanity, in the pay of big oil (I wish), being thrown out of university's, dismissed from positions for failing to agree to the settled science, called "flatearthers" and generally mocked and dismissed as an uneducated minority hat doesn't matter.

    You now want a debate. Okay the topic is to "Show that the IPCC did not manufacture AGW scare using public funds and that full and accountable scientific procedures were employed in all aspects of it's work that can be checked globally by any interested party"

    Complain about this comment

  • 394. At 4:11pm on 08 Feb 2010, DavidHankey wrote:

    We cannot change nature. We can interfere with it but what will happen in the long run will be decided by nature itself.

    Growing up in the 50's I remember cold, snowy winters and warm, hot summers so why is when we have these seasonal features nowadays do people think it's all to do with "global warming" and "climate change"? It's not it is nature and natural.

    Complain about this comment

  • 395. At 4:21pm on 08 Feb 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke:

    This thing with Phil Jones is probably true about the death threats, there are enough crazy's about who get kicks out of doing such things, regardless of AGW. What the police have to determine is are they actually a real threat or just nonsense and is he (Jones)under a genunine threat.

    However, the big one people are missing is that Jones was taken to Police HQ in order to give a statement regarding these threats. Well unless the police are also part of the nanny state you would usually take a statement of complaint at the home address and not send a couple of CID officers round to pick him up and drive him to the HQ.

    Now that would mean something completely different

    Complain about this comment

  • 396. At 4:24pm on 08 Feb 2010, ALLEN wrote:

    The main reason why people are sceptical of climate change is the way its been handled by the government.
    Just another way of jacking up stealth taxes to the hilt and whats more the government just dont get it.
    Were all sick of paying taxes through the nose, at least those of us that are working.

    Complain about this comment

  • 397. At 4:35pm on 08 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    #379 and #381:

    Gosh, well I'd like to refute that, but it's hard to know where to start. Do we or do we not agree that the temperature is increasing?

    The trouble with the climate sceptics' arguments is that they do seem to lack consistency. If you could all agree on a coherent theory why you thing AGW is wrong, it would be a better starting point for a good scientific debate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 398. At 5:22pm on 08 Feb 2010, Frank wrote:

    I think Mr. Black means 'miligate (against)' not 'militate'.
    Has Mr Black read 'Sustainable Energy - Without Hot Air'? by David J C MacKay? Published by UIT Cambridge in 2009. ISBN 978-0-9544529-3-3. Also
    FREE online at www.withouthotair.com
    This is the most comprehensive, authoritative,and very readable, current book on energy production and consumption and the implicatins for global warming.
    Tells it how it is in relation to the true potential of alternative energy sources.
    Everyone with young children or grandchildren should read it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 399. At 5:31pm on 08 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Shadorne, further to your #193 and my #206, I think you, and everyone else, should find this interesting. There is also a link, at the bottom, to a video talk by Dr. Christopher Field:-

    ‘…Dr. Christopher Field is the founding director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology, Professor of Biology and Environmental Earth System Science at Stanford University, and Faculty Director of Stanford's Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve. The author of more than 200 scientific publications, Field’s research emphasizes impacts of climate change, from the molecular to the global scale. His work includes major field experiments on responses of California grassland to multi-factor global change, integrative studies on the global carbon cycle, and assessments of impacts of climate change on agriculture.
    Field’s work with models includes studies on the global distribution of carbon sources and sinks, and studies on environmental consequences of expanding biomass energy. Field has served on many national and international committees related to global ecology and climate change. He was a coordinating lead author for the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    Field has testified before US House and Senate committees and has appeared on media from National Public Radio (US) “Science Friday” to BBC “Your World Today”. He is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences. Field received his PhD from Stanford University in 1981 and has been at the Carnegie Institution for Science since 1984.
    http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/05/videos-humans-are-changing-the-climate-global-warming-threat-chris-field/#more-18551

    Complain about this comment

  • 400. At 5:34pm on 08 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @DisgustedOfMitcham2 #397

    temperature is currently fairly flat but the trend is still upwards

    bowman is merely pointing out that the temperature goes up and down over time. This is clearly indicated in the recent instrumental temperature history, which shows periods of rising temperature and then falling temperature. The overall trend, however, continues to be rising

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 401. At 5:51pm on 08 Feb 2010, lburt wrote:

    @manusummits #364 who wrote...
    "As you will notice soon, if you have not already, the contrarians have an interesting memory, conveniently forgetting solid evidence posted to refute categorically their absurd statements"

    And what YOU will soon notice is that your concept of "science" has been twisted and perverted by a overly politicized establishment. With the revelation of the corruption within the so-called "top" climate researchers, REAL scientists are now looking at the information with ACTUAL scrutiny. In the old system (and your warped sense of how science worked) correlation was causation as long as it fit with global warming. This intellectually lazy (and often wrong) approach will no longer be tolerated...nor will the selective use of data to show ONLY data that fits established dogma.

    Then of course the other problem will raise its ugly head. Many of the climate changes were NOT the result of warming at all. Those changes had actually caused the warming. The natural cycles are undoing many of the relationships that sloppy scientists had assumed were driven by heat. How much of everyone's perception of "warming" was from the mild winters that tend to result from the warming phase of the PDO, AMO and NAO? How much of the local climate changes like rainfall were just part of the cycle...something that can even be observed within our own short recorded history (dust bowl anyone?)



    @DisgustedOfMitcham2 #375 who wrote...
    "That doesn't prove that CO2 is causing global warming, of course, but it is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that it is. Moreover, there is no other obvious explanation of the data."

    This would be a great argument if we had a good indication that the earth's temperature was remotely stable. However, even during the far more stable interglacial temperatures we find that the general behavior (from what we can work out) is actually one of nearly constant fluctuations up and down. These random warming/cooling events are in general more powerful than those we have experienced today. The recent warming is about as "unprecedented" as getting up to go to work in the morning. And the past warming and cooling (within this interglacial or otherwise) has no apparent link to CO2.

    And later in #382 says...
    "but the climate sceptics' arguments tend to be about conspiracy theories rather than about a rational debate of the science."

    Here's the not so subtle difference. It turns out skeptics were right about corruption within the main group of "top climate scientists", manipulation of the temperature record in many places to show more warming, the terrible "science" being used in the IPCC reports that seems to have been rubber-stamped as valid just because it supports the cause...

    And that just leaves the alarmists claiming that there's some sort of organized conspiracy by "big oil" to spread disinformation on a massive scale. Right, the large percentage of skeptical people COULDN'T be speaking for themselves to stop the utter madness of run-away green policies. No, they'd stand by idly when radical changes were going to impact their lives to the tune of many tens of trillions of dollars in unnecessary infrastructure changes, taxes, more expensive energy sources, etc. Yeah, they wouldn't feel any need to speak up at all so it MUST be a conspiracy.

    That skeptics are all part of some PR plot is a conspiracy theory. But green groups, the IPCC and some climate scientists enjoying world-wide fame (infamy now) blowing climate issues WAY out of proportion (or flat out lying)...has now been exposed as the reality. What's sad is that there are ACTUAL environmental issues and we're going to have to wade through the sea of garbage science to find what the heck is real.

    And in #397 wrote...
    "If you could all agree on a coherent theory why you thing AGW is wrong, it would be a better starting point for a good scientific debate."

    We're skeptics. We're not so much stating that we're right but that it appears there is a good chance YOU are wrong. We point out the utterly incoherent bits in YOUR hypothesis...which you've completely failed to address. The climate system is VERY poorly understood and you guys are claiming you can predict the climate for 100 years without understanding short to mid term variations.



    @Colonicus III #386 who wrote...
    "esspecially by those attempting to paint AGW 'believer' as some sort of creationist or religious fanatical group."

    Well I think you should take this up with your fellow warming worriers...because they were in fact the first to throw those "stones" from the porch of their glass hoses. What's really going to be sad is that in a few years, much of the junk science will probably be cleared away and it will be found that indeed...the "climate science" of the 80s, 90s and early 2000s was closer to a relgion.

    Complain about this comment

  • 402. At 5:52pm on 08 Feb 2010, Colonicus III wrote:

    Re:390 bowmanthebard

    Again you take my comment out of context.
    Actually looking back at the posts against AGW I've noticed a parallel with the spin politics of the UK and character attacking politics of the US. It achieves nothing in a scientific debate except muddy the issue, precisely the point I was making.

    Anyway....

    No I don't want to debate this, I want climate scientists to debate this. Too many people who don't know enough about the science have been getting involved and unbalancing the argument, often on the pro-AGW side admittedly which only gives more ammo to the Anti-AGW side.

    I have not asked for people to be censored or for opinions I disagree with to be removed, I merely want the debate to be a scientific one.

    I suppose you would like to see me debating an issue on local issues in your area and making wild accusations about one party or another when I have no knowledge of the issues being debated?

    Constructive critique of any scientific theory is not only laudable but a necessary part of the theories development, indeed no theory is immune.
    However I fail to see how, wild conspiracy theories, personal insults, pseudo scientific arguments, uniformed or unreasonable arguments and counter theories can ever be constructive.
    As I have said, all this does is cloud the issues and bogs the debate down in areas that are irrelevant or widely misunderstood.



    Re:393 Kamboshigh
    Now is that 'Tarring everyone Pro-AGW with the same brush?'
    Thank you for a brilliant example of my point. It is always nice when that happens.

    Complain about this comment

  • 403. At 6:04pm on 08 Feb 2010, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Don’t know what’s going on over at UAH but the satellite data for February is showing global near surface temperatures to be much warmer than previous years and that’s after January being the warmest in the 32 year satellite history.
    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 404. At 6:44pm on 08 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #397 DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    "I'd like to refute that, but it's hard to know where to start. Do we or do we not agree that the temperature is increasing?"

    I accept that temperatures were increasing in a very fitful way for about 30 years from about 1970 to about 2000. Since then, it looks very inconclusive. Before that, it's anyone's guess, because there just aren't any reliable ways of telling. Until a few decades ago, there were relatively few thermometers, which were neither widely nor carefully placed, nor were they very accurate. It is said that the hottest year was in the 1930s, but no one knows really, as all readings depend so much on local conditions such as wind direction.

    There are some peripheral indicators such as historical stories about early settlements in Greenland, the freezing of the Thames, the sporadic opening and closing of the Northwest Passage, and so on, but again these are relatively "local" events.

    Other supposed sources of "data" are too theory-laden to be of any use at all. All data are theory-laden, but some -- such as "proxy data" -- are more theory-laden than others. The fact that the greenhouse effect is well-established is very seductive, and I think it leads many people to accept far too easily and unquestioningly interpretations of "proxy data" that merely confirm their prejudices.

    But more importantly, hypotheses should be tested against the real world instead of being specially tailored to fit pre-existent "data", even if such data were of very high quality. A hypothesis is about the real world, not measurements, and ad hoc "tailoring" of a hypothesis or model to fit measurements instead of the real world is to pay attention to altogether the wrong things, under the malign influence of a serious philosophical error.

    That philosophical error is a profound misunderstanding about how science works, and about what makes a scientific theory belief-worthy -- as some scientific theories definitely are. To construct a model that has the ability to "play back" later "data" on the basis of earlier "data" -- a feat it achieves through sacrificing all the standard virtues of a good hypothesis such as simplicity and modesty -- is very badly misguided, in my opinion.

    It is true that sceptics differ from each other quite a lot, although all accept that the greenhouse effect is real, and that climate change happens. Many sceptics do not believe the claim that global temperatures are climbing inexorably upwards, and most don't believe the claim that any upward tendency is primarily caused by CO2 levels. I am in a minority of sceptics in thinking that global warming would be a good thing, because as a rule of thumb more heat means more biomass.

    Back to #397 DisgustedOfMitcham2:

    "The trouble with the climate sceptics' arguments is that they do seem to lack consistency. If you could all agree on a coherent theory why you thing AGW is wrong, it would be a better starting point for a good scientific debate."

    Like the (currently strangely silent) davblo2, you need to see that there is an important asymmetry between defending and rejecting a belief. The person who defends a belief has to give a coherent account of why it is worth believing, but a sceptic just has to show why it isn't worth believing, and he may have lots of different reasons, which need not be consistent with each other.

    To see this, consider my scepticism about God. I do not believe in God because I think life and the origin of the universe can be better explained by science. I have another, independent reason for not believing in God, in the so-called "Problem of Evil" ( = if God is all-powerful and all-good, why does he allow evil?). These reasons are probably inconsistent, but they do not need to be consistent, since each is individually sufficient for my scepticism. Furthermore, different sceptics will have different reasons from each other.

    I can see why you would like to have a scientific debate, but for me the problems with AGW go much deeper than that. They go right to the heart of what science is, what belief is, what to count as evidence, and what makes a scientific theory belief-worthy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 405. At 6:47pm on 08 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #402 Colonicus III wrote:

    "No I don't want to debate this, I want climate scientists to debate this."

    And let the question of God's existence be decided by people who "know about such things", such as priests.

    Complain about this comment

  • 406. At 8:32pm on 08 Feb 2010, Colonicus III wrote:

    Re:405
    Nice effort, try to tick off the scientist by mentioning religion. I salute your forum argument starting ability sir!

    Re:401
    I've said before, although not in this forum, I think the 'alarmists' are more annoying than 'deniers'. They also probably cause more damage to the climate change argument than anything else as people think that is what the science is predicting. They get people doing things which are not environmentaly friendly but they think they are saving the planet! For example I actually had a woman rant at me in sainsburys for using the free plastic bags, then not 2 minuites later I see her getting into a Porsche 4x4 parked next to my 1.2 punto. If you are fanatical enough to tell people off then please learn about environmentaly friendly issues and make the changes that will make a difference.

    Complain about this comment

  • 407. At 8:48pm on 08 Feb 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    Referring to Richard Leakey's remark:

    "And the temperature has risen, by over two degrees, Celsius, already. It's not a question of if it does, over the next thirty years. It has, over the last ten." @18:20

    @314, JaneBasingstoke wrote (responding to my query as I had difficulty hearing the speech):

    He didn't give precise locations. Just "in Antarctica" and "several research stations".


    I think you were correct first time when you wrote:

    “I really wish Richard Leakey hadn't said this. “

    The statement may be factually correct for chosen stations and spot times but gives a grossly exaggerated picture of actual temperature trends; especially with the recent debate over Antarctic temperature trends.

    Complain about this comment

  • 408. At 8:48pm on 08 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #406 Colonicus III wrote:

    "Nice effort, try to tick off the scientist by mentioning religion."

    I don't think you're a scientist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 409. At 8:56pm on 08 Feb 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Everyone's talking about the Superbowl Ads showing the Green Police.

    This advert would not have been run last year - but the climate has now changed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 410. At 9:04pm on 08 Feb 2010, Bonn1e wrote:

    402.Colonicus III

    I think there are a good number of professional scientists who would welcome debate in scientific terms. However it would appear that they have been somewhat stifled in their attempts to do so! Sadly, and to the loss of us all, the AGW protagonists & their supporters have spent the last 20 years rather loftily dismissing anyone who has queried their work as being ‘unqualified to comment’. ‘Climatology’ is a very recent scientific discipline, comprising small parts of numerous other different branches of science. Whether this has caused its professionals to feel intimidated by those from more established areas of scientific study, or whether they simply feel that only they possess the ‘full picture’ is hard to say, but the result appears to be an elitist, closed club which scoffs at other specialists whose expertise may lie in the fields of economics, geology, mineralogy, maths or statistics. This is very apparent in the CRU emails yet, given that a little of each of these fields falls within the sphere of climatology, it seems an exceedingly short-sighted stance to adopt.

    Unfortunately this attitude of moral and intellectual superiority has been passed on, and adopted by, a great many of the untrained supporters of the AGW hypothesis and it is often excruciatingly demonstrated in the ‘blogospheres’ which we, the public at large, inhabit. It is unsurprising therefore that there has been such a passionate reaction to recent events.

    Whether you like it or not, it is the public who will ultimately accept or reject any measures proposed, after all it is us who pay the price, whatever that may be. It is my belief that there IS still much to debate, and not just by climate scientists who have recently shown themselves in such a poor light. Space must be given also to those whose specialisms find economic, statistical, meteorological and biological flaws in the arguments, so that these may also be addressed, because this debate concerns us all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 411. At 9:13pm on 08 Feb 2010, Colonicus III wrote:

    Re:408
    I was an astrophysicist actually. Got a masters degree in Physics and Astronomy. Now I work in intelectual property law.

    Complain about this comment

  • 412. At 9:39pm on 08 Feb 2010, Bonn1e wrote:

    411. Colonicus III

    I do hope your legal documents don't contain spelling errors :-)!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 413. At 10:02pm on 08 Feb 2010, lburt wrote:

    @Colonicus III #406

    In a previous post I'd lumped you in with the "warming worriers" but then you said...
    "I've said before, although not in this forum, I think the 'alarmists' are more annoying than 'deniers'."

    So obviously that's unlikely to be the case. After digging around you appear to be more of a luke warmer. Of course, my comment about alarmists complaining that they're being compared to religious zealots stands...they "went there" first and are now paying the price

    Complain about this comment

  • 414. At 10:42pm on 08 Feb 2010, cping500 wrote:

    I studied climate change about 15 years ago and the text I used is free on the web. The data has changed but as far as I can see the theories/models remain much as before, and the controversy about the long term world wide data goes on. So I remain 'case unproven' about ACC (note my change). There is of course the issue of the precautionary principle, but not living in low lying coastal areas as people have pointed out means moving the most of the Dutch ot building bigger walls.

    However I am driven by money and taking advantage of newer technology has reduced my power bill (and I can't really see increased system costs; in fact my neighbour sells on 65% cost saving on current office lighting so not doing this is a no brainer) I notice at long last IC engines are becoming more efficient... maybe we can be given watts in v watts out soon... and I cheat a little living in the city centre which is warmer. Of course the jclaks followers won't want to do this. They like burning money so it won't go to Africa.

    Complain about this comment

  • 415. At 11:25pm on 08 Feb 2010, Nick S wrote:

    "91. At 11:08am on 06 Feb 2010, Rustigjongens wrote:
    Interesting poll, the results although not surprising should spur activists to insist on reform within the IPCC and of course CRU.

    To negate the constant negative press that both organisations are currently experincing, would it not be better to remove the discredited head of the IPCC, remove the CRU management team (and install scientists not tarnished by the scandal), ensure that all raw data is published to support any claims made regarding the climate (it is the responsibilty of the claimiant to prove their theory not the sceptic)& finally ensure that peer reviewed means it follows the standards used on other scientific branches."

    I can't see any particular downside to this - admittedly it is unfortunate for the scientists involved IF they haven't done anything wrong, but a serious 'houseclean' looks in order, if only to suggest a clean slate. I think it would be very useful to also recheck the data for both genuine errors and also falsifications - neither of which benefit anyone in the long run.

    "106. At 12:29pm on 06 Feb 2010, jon112uk wrote:
    I do wish the eco-zealots would understand.

    The message you are trying sell is not just the 'science' You have wrapped it up in politics and social change. You don't just want us to buy into the hockey stick graph. You want us to give up our whole way of life, transfer our remaining wealth to africa and live in poverty. Unsurprisingly, normal people are resistant.
    ...
    People are quite happy to make progress, including a move to new sources of energy. So long as they keep their quality of life. Example: I will not give up my car because it will render me unemployed, but I will happily buy a car powered by non-fossil energy. If CO2 emissions is REALLY your agenda then you should have no problem with that. Why don't you start campaigning to make the car (and the fuel) available to me? I will join you in that campaign. Why should I resist?

    As I say: change the package."

    I quite agree that this is the 'message' that the IPCC and governments should be focusing on - and indeed buying (literally) into ... huge investment into e.g. renewables (THAT WORK) and increased energy efficiency (e.g. LED lighting and insulation) would make an enormous difference to our emissions AND lifestyle but without horrendous reductions in quality of life. The hair-shirt approach is (I believe) actually unnecessary if we leverage the enormous technological and scientific powers at our disposal quickly enough (that being of course the critical point!)

    The irony is that the same powers/abilities can be harnessed effectively to provide both 'deniers' AND 'believers' benefits, and more importantly the descendants of both for generations untold: more efficient, effective sources of power, food production, transportation, whilst allowing for and maximising environmental and genetic variety (note not necessarily unchanging) etc. I fail to see how these can be a 'bad thing' regardless of whether you believe in AGW or not, so where's the risk?

    I apologise for not having the time at the moment for reading all the posts after about 200, but look forward to perusing them tomorrow! If even the die-hard on BOTH sides can take a deep breath and accept that we all need to meet somewhere in between, I'd suggest it'd be a lot more productive! (Governments take note please.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 416. At 11:53pm on 08 Feb 2010, Nick S wrote:

    As a further aside, there is always a danger with ANY point of view - that the person holding it will become so fixated on the truth of that view that they render themselves incapable of accepting any discussion or argument that does not fit jigsaw-like with their current position, no matter HOW reasoned or evidence-based.

    Any scientist (and indeed person generally) should operate on the basis of fluid hypotheses i.e. I believe a certain hypothesis to be true but if reasonable evidence is demonstrated to me that suggests either that a different hypothesis to be more likely, or that my original hypothesis is incorrect, then after reasonable exploration of the validity of the evidence, I should re-examine my original hypothesis and test it in view of the new evidence.

    In other words, always be prepared to at least test any belief you have, to see if it still seems reasonable, in the face of valid evidence.

    It would appear (from a brief overview of several previous blogs) that many on both sides could do with trying this out?

    I personally am quite happy to admit that I have not had enough time to properly formulate an informed opinion and am therefore neither an AGW believer OR skeptic (please excuse my previous misspelling) at the moment, however as I mention I don't see how taking REAL (no not carbon-trading) effective steps to both reduce waste of all kinds (including but certainly not limited to CO2) can be a bad thing - waste after all is not profitable!

    Complain about this comment

  • 417. At 00:32am on 09 Feb 2010, davblo wrote:

    bowmanthebard #404: "Like the (currently strangely silent) davblo2, you need to see that there is an important asymmetry between defending and rejecting a belief. The person who defends a belief has to give a coherent account of why it is worth believing, but a sceptic just has to show why it isn't worth believing,..."

    Showing why "it isn't worth believing" would entail presenting a valid criticism (scepticism). Yet in your subsequent example...

    "I do not believe in God because I think life and the origin of the universe can be better explained by science."

    ...you are making a counter proposition. That would leave you having to justify why "life and the origin of the universe can be better explained by science"; ie defending another belief.

    That is not scepticism.

    Only your second example "if God is all-powerful and all-good, why does he allow evil?" would be a more valid sceptical argument since it does not introduce another belief.

    Also; you say "but a sceptic...may have lots of different reasons, which need not be consistent with each other...Furthermore, different sceptics will have different reasons from each other".

    It seems to me that there must be a difference in how you "add up" the weight of these sceptical views.

    If you have 10 different arguments against a belief, and they are all consistent, they reinforce each other and you have a strong case.

    If you have 10 mutually incompatible criticisms, then they don't reinforce each other and the overall case against is greatly reduced. If only one criticism is valid then the case against is surely weaker.

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 418. At 01:02am on 09 Feb 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Re:-
    372. At 1:26pm on 08 Feb 2010, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:

    @xtragrumpmike2 #335 & me@357


    Mango....Hi.........apologies for the delay in replying to this, there are many reasons why I have been "unavoidably delayed" probably the most significant being the 13 hour time difference.

    This is my reference that I posted:-

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    However, it is no longer relevant to our (note "our") debate here as I have been able to read a more recent post of yours #379.

    Let me explain.
    My post previously was in answer to a claim of yours (it goes back a while to a previous article from Richard) that......quote (but not in your exact words)......"you had studied the evidence (for AGW) and found it wanting"

    My response was ....along the lines........"how can you claim to find the evidence"wanting" if you haven't studied ALL of it?"

    and consequently posted the link above, which is a very extensive list, being the "evidence" used by Working Group 1 to validate their conclusions for AR4.

    However, in #379, I gather that what you are saying is that the "evidence" is incomplete (hence....wanting). You quote the issue of sensitivity and I note that no-one has answered your request for a link to a paper dealing with that isuue.

    Fair enough.

    So....back to your offer........to debate those references quoted in the list.

    This we could not do because as I have said on several occasions in the past.......I know diddly squat about the "science".

    I have read SOME of the papers, from BOTH sides of the debate including genuine scientists from the "sceptic" lobby and I find the "science" beyond me. So I keep out of the "science" debate.

    However, in my long "scientific" career I have had a very varied set of experiences which culminated in the last 25 years or so in what can be described as the discipline of Risk Management. And it is from that standpoint that I enter this debate.

    So....back to where we are at and why.

    This link gives a "broad brush" background to the IPCC and for what purpose it was inaugurated.

    http://www.ipccfacts.org/history.html

    If you haven't read it before, it only takes a few minutes to peruse and you will find much that sceptics can get their teeth into!

    Essentially you will observe, the IPCC report is a Risk Assessment.

    It is a Risk Assessment based on information provided by a very long list of papers. (such as the list in the Link I posted at the beginning of this, for AR4)

    It is a Risk Assessment accepted at Rio 1992 and the participating governments who attended.

    It was adopted as Policy for Decision Makers there and that stands as of today. A recent article from Richard outlined the Governments of the World that have already supplied IN WRITING their acknowledgment of this situation along with what mitigating effects they plan to adopt. (you will notice just about every one includes the phrase......."if others do likewise" or similar. The "horse-trading continues!)

    And , just to repeat again, this will continue until such time as the IPCC is demonstrated to be wrong. A mammoth task but not impossible as the "science" is NOT settled.

    This Global policy will NOT be overturned (as some on this site suggest) by the UK Public dictating to the UK Government. Those that believe that have more chance of winning the Pools than ever seeing that come to fruition.

    Brown went to Copenhagen in the belief that he was going to come away as the architect of the new accord. What did he get? Egg on his face.

    LarryKealy points out (there are many contributions I read and many I ignore) "we don't know enough" which is inline with your comment and anyone with an open mind (even the IPCC agree, "we need to know more") will acknowledge the validity of those opinions. But............put yourself for a moment in the shoes of a Policy Maker (aka Government).

    Would you not ask these two questions

    "When will we "know enough"?, and
    "What do you propose we do until we do "know enough"?

    Can you answer those questions to the satisfaction of the Policy Makers of ALL the Governments of the World.

    In conclusion, as a father, grandfather and (for my partner ...great grandmother) and I probably speak for many on this site:-

    "I sincerely hope that the IPCC Risk Assessment is wrong. To that end, I sincerely hope that there IS evidence out there, and that genuine (honest) sceptics with appropriate scientific expertise can bring this "evidence" to the Policy Makers ASAP.I further believe that most of the Policy Makers would welcome with open arms for this "evidence" to be brought to the surface."

    To date........this has not happened.

    And now I feel I should sign off from this debate and wish you ALL well.

    Complain about this comment

  • 419. At 02:16am on 09 Feb 2010, who said what wrote:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_reviewer_draws_on_his_favorite_authority_himself/

    yet another one.........interesting from Australia

    Complain about this comment

  • 420. At 02:25am on 09 Feb 2010, Brian wrote:

    I am extremely disappointed that the BBC continues to employ someone whose views are so obviously biased.
    Why do you contine to suppress the established, irrefutable evidence (from ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments etc.) that the global climate changes from warmer periods to cooler on a 1400 to 1500 year cycle?
    This is why there are climate sceptics; they recognise that the earth has become warmer since 1750 (the Little Ice Age) and we are currently roughly half-way to same warm temperatures as were enjoyed in medieval, Roman and Minoan times.
    Sceptics are sceptical because no climate scientist has produced a model which includes the 1400-1500 year cycles and also demonstrates that the current warning has anything to do with the amount of carbon dioxide (man-made or otherwise) in the atmosphere.

    Complain about this comment

  • 421. At 03:13am on 09 Feb 2010, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Brief return.....very brief.

    Got a letter from the moderator saying I had inserted a broken URL.

    He/She was quite correct. Carelessness on my part. Slipped when "cut and pasting"

    Just in case anyone is interested (probably not) here it is ............correctly

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

    Seems like I missed off the 'l' from 'html' Makes all the difference!

    Complain about this comment

  • 422. At 03:15am on 09 Feb 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    Jane,

    Thanks for the links you provided. I am delighted that the TV part of the BBC has some investigative journalists like Andrew Neil, who ask tough questions. Not being in the UK I tend to just reed the BBC website.

    I think it is fair to say that it mostly the BBC website that has a major bias problem. It honestly appears that the some of the BBC TV interviewers are attempting to tackle this thermageddon monster that has blown man-made CO2 completely out of all proportion.

    I am encouraged! Their is hope yet for a free press.

    Complain about this comment

  • 423. At 03:37am on 09 Feb 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    Xtragrumpymike: I know diddly squat about the "science".

    Xtragrumpymike:"I sincerely hope that the IPCC Risk Assessment is wrong. To that end, I sincerely hope that there IS evidence out there, and that genuine (honest) sceptics with appropriate scientific expertise can bring this "evidence" to the Policy Makers ASAP.I further believe that most of the Policy Makers would welcome with open arms for this "evidence" to be brought to the surface." To date........this has not happened.

    There is plenty of evidence which refutes the IPCC Risk Assessment and shows that it is wrong. However, you don't understand diddly squat about the science and neither do people like Dr. Pachauri and the IPCC. (It is a political body not a scientific body - skeptics cannot use science against political activists. It is like a religious person saying "I believe in God, I challenge you skeptics to that God doesn't exist!" Debate at this level is a waste of time.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 424. At 06:14am on 09 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Nick S #415

    but I will happily buy a car powered by non-fossil energy. If CO2 emissions is REALLY your agenda then you should have no problem with that.

    I think that's a good idea. Several manufacturers have electric vehicles now. How much would it cost to replace every car with an electric car or would the strain on the national grid be too much? If CO2 is really the problem, the cost of doing this is surely insignificant when weighing up the consequences.

    @xtragrumpmike2 #418

    This is my reference that I posted:-

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


    This is going to sound like a non-answer or an evasion, but the problem is I've perused the list titles and none of the references appear to address the cause of the warming, only the consequences, although I will openly admit that I haven't read each and every paper from cover to cover, so i could be wrong.

    This we could not do because as I have said on several occasions in the past.......I know diddly squat about the "science".

    I have read SOME of the papers, from BOTH sides of the debate including genuine scientists from the "sceptic" lobby and I find the "science" beyond me. So I keep out of the "science" debate.


    That's a shame Mike, because the actually CO2 bit of global warming isn't that difficult to understand. I would urge you and all readers to understand that CO2 is capable of raising the temperature, but due to positive and negative feedbacks (climate sensitivity), this rise in temperature is insignificant.

    However, in my long "scientific" career I have had a very varied set of experiences which culminated in the last 25 years or so in what can be described as the discipline of Risk Management. And it is from that standpoint that I enter this debate.

    I understand what you are saying about the PP, Mike, but there is also a cost element to look at.

    Principle 15 - In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

    I don't think the measures proposed for "curing" global warming are either cost-effective or indeed effective.

    This link gives a "broad brush" background to the IPCC and for what purpose it was inaugurated.

    http://www.ipccfacts.org/history.html


    The thing I find interesting about this link is this bit:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations Organizations, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme to assess “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.”

    It's as if the IPCC was set up with a predetermined task. This statement has now been removed from the official IPCC website.

    But............put yourself for a moment in the shoes of a Policy Maker (aka Government).

    Would you not ask these two questions

    "When will we "know enough"?, and
    "What do you propose we do until we do "know enough"?


    I think more pertinent questions for the policy makers are:

    "How can we allow a small group of people, many of whom work together, to dominate world policy?, and
    "Where are the checks and balances to ensure these people are not abusing their position"?

    You quote the issue of sensitivity and I note that no-one has answered your request for a link to a paper dealing with that isuue.

    I've been asking the same very important question ever since i came here, Mike, and to-date nobody has been able to answer. A few have had a go, but there answers and links do not take into account water vapour / clouds.

    I know I am a little single minded on this issue, but until somebody comes up with a calculation or observational evidence which shows high climate sensitivity including water vapour / clouds, I will remain sceptical of CO2 induced global warming.

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 425. At 07:35am on 09 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    bowmanthebard #404: "I do not believe in God because I think life and the origin of the universe can be better explained by science."

    davblo #417: "you are making a counter proposition. That would leave you having to justify why "life and the origin of the universe can be better explained by science"; ie defending another belief."

    Scepticism about any particular belief or set of beliefs always involves reliance on other beliefs. In other words, there's no such thing as "global scepticism". Even "Cartesian scepticism" is not global.

    My own scepticism about climate science relies on a more abstract theory of what real science is, and what makes hypotheses good or bad.

    "That is not scepticism."

    Yes it is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 426. At 08:34am on 09 Feb 2010, P J Walton wrote:

    My belief that climate change is at least partly human induced has not declined. My belief in climate watchdog agencies and the IPCC has slipped. I heard alarm bells when Pachauri delivered his vegetarianism platitude at Copenhagen. He betrayed the the fact that we have too many dogmatists and ideologues in the climate movement. Please give us objective science ere we perish!

    Complain about this comment

  • 427. At 09:39am on 09 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    #400, Mango:

    Thanks for clearing that up. I hope all reasonable people can agree that the temperature fluctuates, but at the moment, there is a clear upward trend.

    Why do you think the trend is currently upwards if it's nothing to do with rising CO2 levels?

    Complain about this comment

  • 428. At 09:45am on 09 Feb 2010, Colonicus III wrote:

    Re:412
    The joys of the spell checker has no doubt saved my job.



    Anyway..

    I think one of the fundamental problems with this debate is that there is no small amount of junk science involved from both sides.

    Another is that alot of people seem to pick a side before looking at the science, by which point they are usually ideologically (for wan't of a better word) linked with one answer or another.

    People are so close minded about the subject that it seems to be assumed that if you believe AGW then you believe every single theory supporting AGW and vice versa. This is clearly nonsense, but it is an assumption many make (no doubt I am guilty of it too). This is why I want the debate to be carried out by scientists not politicians, the public and media.





    Re:413
    I appreciate the attempt to make a reasoned comment based on what I've actually said instead of the rants and insults that are so frequently thrown about on these threads. Makes a nice change to see someone wiling to have a reasonable discussion from the sceptical side.

    I hope you forgive me for using you as a good example of catergorising people. You wonder if I'm a 'worrying warmer' or a 'luke warmer' the same way pro-AGW people define people as a 'skeptic' or 'denier'. People do this all the time, in all areas, and it leads to an assumption of what that person thinks which then obscures the issues as I've explained before.

    If you look at the proper definitions of the words however, I am probably more of a sceptic than alot of the people posting anti-AGW comments here. This is because it is all about how you go about being sceptical. You treat everything with equal scepticism, thats the point of scientific research.

    I 'think' that, given the 'current evidence' each way, climate change is 'probably' happening, CO2 is 'probably' 'effecting' the change and man is 'almost certainly' increasing the amount of C02 in the atmosphere.

    That is a truely sceptical statement.
    I 'think', I don't 'know' or 'believe'. I 'think'..... 'probably'.
    If I see new evidence I 'think' about it, then the way I 'think' about the whole issue will change and may change the side of the argument people place me on.
    I don't take my cue from others, I think about it for myself, something that regretibly many people don't do. This is why I don't get involved in debating issues unless it is something that I understand fully, otherwise I just cloud the debate with potentially incorrect statements.

    I have actually switched sides from thiking about the evidence I've seen (for want of a better term) already. I used to think that there was probably some external source or effect from planetary orbits, solar activity etc. However my degree gave me new knowledge and evidence to alter my thinking in that regard.

    This is the whole reason that people use the argument that there is a scientific concensus.
    The consensus in science follows the evidence.





    And Re: Comments about climate changing naturally.

    No climate scientist is claiming that the climate is stable and has never changed. The problem is that our actions now are an addition factor in the equation.

    A good analogy is looking at a child on a roundabout. They are playing and changing the speed the roundabout spins at seemingly at random.
    Then you walk over and give it a shove.
    Would that have an effect?

    Complain about this comment

  • 429. At 09:50am on 09 Feb 2010, Colonicus III wrote:

    The issue of some Pro-AGW people causing more damage than good was discussed quite interestingly here

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/

    Most of you have probably seen it, but it is a good example of the scientific debate being obscured for what is no doubt a good natured intention in many cases.

    Complain about this comment

  • 430. At 09:53am on 09 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    #401, poitsplace:

    "And that just leaves the alarmists claiming that there's some sort of organized conspiracy by "big oil" to spread disinformation on a massive scale."

    I have no doubt that big oil have spent a good few PR dollars on this, but it's actually a bit more subtle than that. I'm certainly not saying that all the sceptics are in the pay of big oil. However, the fact is that if the worst predictions about AGW are correct, then there are going to be some unpleasant truths to be faced. We are all going to have to make some major lifestyle changes, such as giving up cheap flights, frequent car travel, electronic gadgets, etc. That's an unpleasant thing to have to do. Most people don't like doing unpleasant things. Therefore there is a tendency to say "I'm not going to do those unpleasant things", and then to rationalise this behaviour by saying that the AGW science is all wrong. That tendency to rationalise behaviour to avoid something you'd rather not do is very powerful. Ask any psychologist. And you don't even have to be aware you're doing it. You can easily fool yourself. I'm sure many of the sceptics genuinely believe that the science is wrong, even if they might not have come to that view if the outcome of whether you believe the science didn't have such serious personal consequences for them.

    "We point out the utterly incoherent bits in YOUR hypothesis...which you've completely failed to address. The climate system is VERY poorly understood and you guys are claiming you can predict the climate for 100 years without understanding short to mid term variations."

    Just remind me what those incoherent bits in the AGW hypothesis are? I'm not sure I've seen that done in a way that makes sense.

    I also hope that no-one is claiming to be able to predict the climate for 100 years with any certainty. I would happily admit that predictions about the climate have a generous margin of error round them. I would also admit it's possible that if the most optimistic predictions turn out to be true, then we don't have anything to worry about and can happily continue with all the CO2 emissions we like. However, the best guess is that AGW is very real and that we are facing some serious consequences if we don't limit our CO2 emissions pretty quickly. So the question is, in the immortal words of Clint Eastwood, "Do you feel lucky?"

    Complain about this comment

  • 431. At 09:59am on 09 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    #404, bowmanthebard:

    I don't have a lot to add to davblo's reply at #417, which I think answers your points very well.

    However, I do have a question for you. You say "That philosophical error is a profound misunderstanding about how science works, and about what makes a scientific theory belief-worthy".

    OK, so you think the whole of AGW is based on a fundamentally wrong philosophy of how science works. Is that a fair statement of your views? If so, how do you suggest that climate science be done to come up with a philosophically robust scientific method?

    Complain about this comment

  • 432. At 10:50am on 09 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #431 DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    "how do you suggest that climate science be done to come up with a philosophically robust scientific method?"

    I suggest it comes up with some hypotheses and then test them, in that order.

    A hypothesis is tested by yielding a prediction of some observable event in the future. If the event is actually observed to happen, the hypothesis passes the test. The observational evidence for a hypothesis consists of the tests it has passed. A hypothesis can also exhibit some other virtues such as simplicity and consistency with other things we already believe.

    Current climate "science" mostly consists of constructing computer models to "mimic data from the past", the idea being to use them to "extrapolate into the future" in the hope that the future will resemble the past in the relevant way. This resemblance is supposedly too complicated for the human mind to grasp, which is why we have to turn to computers instead.

    If you think about induction for a bit (induction is the form of inference that consists of extrapolating from a limited set of prior observations), you will see that that project is hopelessly misguided, a dismal waste of time.

    I refer to my earlier message (#363), where I mentioned the Dennett-Hofstader thought-experiment in which an old-fashioned record-player plays a different song from the one on its vinyl record. The song it plays is an artifact of "wizardry in the machine" rather than something actually recorded on the vinyl.

    Complain about this comment

  • 433. At 11:24am on 09 Feb 2010, lburt wrote:

    @DisgustedOfMicham #430 who wrote...
    "I have no doubt that big oil have spent a good few PR dollars on this, but it's actually a bit more subtle than that."

    But you have to admit, the money being spent on AGW storiesmore than a "few" and the campaigns are about as subtle as an atomic bomb.
    ===================

    "However, the fact is that if the worst predictions about AGW are correct, then there are going to be some unpleasant truths to be faced. We are all going to have to make some major lifestyle changes, such as giving up cheap flights, frequent car travel, electronic gadgets, etc."

    AGW alarmism is multifaceted but for these fears to become reality it requires multiple aspects of existing, VERY poorly understood systems to show behaviors that are quite frankly...not likely.

    First off it pretty much requires that CO2 actually show ALL of its theoretical potential to force a gradient change. The first problem is that the limiting layer of the atmosphere is actually the tropopause. The maximum depth of the notch in earth's outgoing spectrum is limited by the temperature of this layer. Without the gradient change (which requires that missing hot spot), the theoretical maximum can NEVER be achieved because it means the temperature of the tropopause has risen...along with its output.

    Another problem is that it is equally well established...were there to be an increase in the gradient, the convection would increase, partly offsetting the changes. Any increase in water vapor would ALSO cause this to change...and water vapor is FAR more efficient at moving energy (since it handles about 30% of earth's energy budget via the 1300 cubic kilometers that evaporate and fall every day)

    Next we come to the feedbacks. For there to be "dangerous" amounts of warming the feedbacks must be positive and powerful. There's only one problem...the temperature record shows clearly that feedbacks are greatly reduced (if not negative) during the interglacial periods. Even with a casual glance at the ice core record, one cannot help but notice that the temperature swings are crazy during glacial-interglacial transitions but quite small during the interglacials.

    The main differences during the glacial period involved the fact that ice extended to within less than 50 degrees of the equator and there were deserts across much of asia. With it icy and dry across much of the northern hemisphere there was far more water vapor and albedo feedback possible and at latitudes that would have greatly increased its impact.

    Finally we come to the whole issue of "dangerous". Changes are not necessarily bad. In fact, it appears that about 3/4 of this interglacial was warmer than today...with mankind's greatest and most successful empires springing up during the warmest periods. The populations exploded, records seem to indicate these were times of plenty. Greenland was colonized during one of these periods and they farmed there for hundreds of years...before the advancing ice wiped them out.

    We even see improved chances of survival with the passing of the seasons. While all of the alarmists LOVE to point to the terrible, terrible heat wave that caused an "excess" of 35000 deaths across all of europe...EVERY WINTER in the UK alone has an excess over summer deaths of about the same amount. The US has over 100000 excess deaths during the winter months. As temperatures have warmed...excess deaths have generally gone down.

    But what about sea level rise??? Well, you have to remember that these people are NOT chained to concrete blocks on a flood plain. The sea levels have been rising for over a century and the rate has hardly changed (not relative to the last warming period anyway). Do you recall reading about the tens of millions that were displaced in the 20th century? NO??? That's right, the rate of rise is so low that most structures are destroyed LONG before the sea claims them. Cities slowly creep around anyway. Old structures are destroyed, new ones are erected. The number of people living on a flood plain decreases as its flooding increases...and it takes a whole generation for the change to be noticed.

    We will likely not see anywhere near 100% of CO2's 3.7watt theoretical maximum. Feedbacks are likely very weak to negative or else the antarctic ice sheets wouldn't have survived for over a million years and of course, temperatures would have fluctuated MUCH more anyway. Rates of increase of even the high end IPCC scenarios would likely be far less damaging (if at all) and the climate has shown no hint of that kind of sensitivity or rate of increase.
    ====================

    However, the best guess is that AGW is very real and that we are facing some serious consequences if we don't limit our CO2 emissions pretty quickly. So the question is, in the immortal words of Clint Eastwood, "Do you feel lucky?"

    That's just it, its NOT the best guess...its multiple, sometimes outrageous long shots. So no, I don't feel "lucky" in as much as I see little evidence of any one of them being "worst case", much less all three of them simultaneously being "worst case".

    Complain about this comment

  • 434. At 12:38pm on 09 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    #432:

    "A hypothesis is tested by yielding a prediction of some observable event in the future."

    So the whole of palaeontology is bunk, then?

    But the trouble with applying your philosophy (which, for the most part, is actually pretty sound) to climate science, is that we are trying to predict events many years in the future. The hypotheses will be tested, but clearly they can't be tested for many years.

    It trust you accept that if, in 50 years time, the earth's climate has warmed catastrophically, then the AGW crowd were correct? I would certainly accept that if, in 50 years time, the global temperature is pretty much the same as today, they were wrong (except that I doubt I shall be in a position to accept anything very much in 50 years time, but you get the idea).

    So, the question is, what do you do while you're waiting for the hypotheses to be tested? Do you simply say "it's not a proper science, because we haven't yet been able to test the hypotheses, so it clearly doesn't matter and we can ignore it?"

    That doesn't really work for me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 435. At 1:26pm on 09 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @DisgustedOfMitcham2 #400

    Thanks for clearing that up. I hope all reasonable people can agree that the temperature fluctuates, but at the moment, there is a clear upward trend.

    Why do you think the trend is currently upwards if it's nothing to do with rising CO2 levels?


    It may not be a single reason and is more likely to be a number of reasons (no doubt Davblo2 will add this statement to his hilarious list)

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 436. At 2:04pm on 09 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #434 DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    "So the whole of palaeontology is bunk, then?"

    Palaeontology studies prehistoric life, but it's quite capable of making predictions about fossils that have yet to be found. Anyway, I did say hypotheses are supported by other types of evidence than observations (see my #57).

    "I would certainly accept that if, in 50 years time, the global temperature is pretty much the same as today, they were wrong"

    We don't have to actually fly an aircraft to test its design in a wind tunnel or computer simulation. We don't have to send a probe around the Solar System to test Newton's laws, although space exploration may be our eventual aim. Science is filled with examples of small, modest tests of big, ambitious theories. If the theory of AGW is incapable of making even a rough prediction of the climate just five or ten years in advance, then it's no good.

    Any model (AGW's grossly over-complicated substitiute for a hypothesis) that has been cobbled together simply to match what is taken as "data" about "the climate so far" is bound to be hugely and dangerously misleading, because it will be riddled with artifactual detail. No one would attempt such a thing unless they didn't understand how and when an inductive inference can give us a reason to believe its "conclusion".

    If we look at any graph of past temperatures, the human eye tells us that there is little pattern to be discerned, and what little pattern there is is muddied beyond all repair by vast amounts of extraneous "noise". Instead of diligantly capturing that "noise" for posterity, climate science should try to cut through it by sticking to modest, simple hypotheses that can be honestly tested with observations that have yet to be made.

    AGW supporters remind us, correctly, that "the weather is not the climate". We cannot extrapolate from individual weather events to the climate in general because individual weather events are not representative of climate in general. The trouble is, even long-term climate isn't representative of climate in general, because the climate keeps changing. Anyone can see that just by looking at a graph. (Ironic, isn't it? I'm attacking the "science" of climate change because it isn't facing up to the reality of climate change!)

    A lot of AGW supporters think it sounds childish to say "the graph is very complicated and it goes up-and-down all over the place". Well, I'm proud to sound childish if I can point at the fat old naked emperor and say: "look at the king!"

    Complain about this comment

  • 437. At 2:14pm on 09 Feb 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    Now the Met Office appears to be implicated in scaremongering and FOI obfuscation.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7178430/Met-Office-blocked-role-of-leading-scientist-in-climate-change-row.html

    This is no surprise to skeptics, however, how long will it take for the alarmists to realize that the scary thermageddon caused by man-made CO2 is just a scam?

    After the huge snowstorm last week, will another 20 inches of snow in Washington DC begin to cool the "save-the-world from thermageddon" fervor?

    When will people realize that curbing CO2 is not "crucial to humanity's future".

    Complain about this comment

  • 438. At 2:20pm on 09 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    #435:

    "It may not be a single reason and is more likely to be a number of reasons"

    So what are those reasons? And what is your evidence that they are more plausible than the CO2 explanation?

    Complain about this comment

  • 439. At 2:24pm on 09 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    #436:

    "If the theory of AGW is incapable of making even a rough prediction of the climate just five or ten years in advance, then it's no good."

    On what basis do you say that? Why does it need to make predictions over such as short timescale? Isn't it the prediction over the next few decades that is far more important?

    Anyway, do you think you can predict the climate over the next 5 to 10 years?

    Complain about this comment

  • 440. At 2:42pm on 09 Feb 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #437 Shadorne
    "After the huge snowstorm last week, will another 20 inches of snow in Washington DC begin to cool the "save-the-world from thermageddon" fervor?"

    i looked out the window this morning and it was pouring with rain. made me feel a bit down until i thought all this rain must be great for all the australians and africans suffering from drought. the thought was bliss.

    Complain about this comment

  • 441. At 2:43pm on 09 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Kamboshigh #395

    Er, well the police were also investigating the hack/leak.

    Meanwhile the content problem is outside their remit. It is and has been the subject of inquiries by more specialist individuals including the Information Commissioner's Office for Freedom Of Information Act abuses.

    Complain about this comment

  • 442. At 2:44pm on 09 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @jon112uk
    @Nick S
    @jr4412
    @MangoChutneyUKOK

    "Example: I will not give up my car because it will render me unemployed, but I will happily buy a car powered by non-fossil energy."

    This isn't the only low pain way to cut car based emissions. There's also tackling infrastructure. For instance the humble corner shop prevents a car journey when all you want is some milk. Then there's the school run. A dedicated school bus could give parents more time in the morning and the evening and the bus size could reflect actual use.

    And don't get me started on the subject of loss of village shops, post offices and pubs. Never mind the carbon, these losses leach the life out of villages.

    Complain about this comment

  • 443. At 2:45pm on 09 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Nick S

    Both spellings of sceptic get used. Sceptic with a "C" is used in British English. Skeptic with a "K" is used in American English.

    http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sceptic?view=uk

    Complain about this comment

  • 444. At 2:52pm on 09 Feb 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    DisgustedOfMitcham2 #438

    So what are those reasons? And what is your evidence that they are more plausible than the CO2 explanation?

    It’s not a question of a more plausible reason than the CO2 explanation, it’s simply CO2 is incapable of raising the temperature significantly for the reasons I have stated on many occasions:

    “Sensitivity calculations that do not take into account water vapour, especially clouds, tend to calculate climate sensitivity to be high. Calculations and observational evidence that do take water vapour into account show climate sensitivity to be low.

    Doubling of CO2 will raise the temperature by ~1.1C with an increase or decrease depending on the climate sensitivity assumed by calculation / observation. My argument is calculation alone without taking into account water vapour / clouds is simply incorrect, therefore the calculation / observation evidence which include water vapour / clouds is more likely to be correct.

    Unless somebody has a link to a paper that shows high sensitivity, which includes water vapour / clouds (which are an overall negative feedback), calculations showing high climate sensitivity cannot be correct.”

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 445. At 3:17pm on 09 Feb 2010, Vic Smith wrote:

    If there has been an increase in scepticism recently, part of the reason may well be found in this thread. The constant overstatement of the AGW case may well have produced a momentum in its favour, but the risks of a reaction against it will increase until a more moderate argument is presented.
    At the current state of human knowledge, it is impossible to prove climate-change theory in a definitive way. Continuing to declare the theory as proven 'beyond doubt' simply invites sceptics to debunk it with ease.
    Polls suggest that public opinion broadly follows the AGW line, so why is so much energy expended on trying to persuade the last few people who prefer to hold a different view?
    Actions to avert the predicted catastrophe will come from politicians, not scientists. Populations that are going to have unpleasant changes forced on them need to know that their governments are acting in good faith. This is the reason that errors like the glacial melt howler take on such significance. It doesn't matter that it has no effect on the body of evidence. The risk is to public trust. If people think that their government is lying to them, they will remove it if they can or refuse to comply with its will if they can't.
    It seems that the IPCC has been lucky this time and the damage is limited. That may not always be the case.

    Complain about this comment

  • 446. At 3:23pm on 09 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    OK, if anyone is interested, there is a lot more Fred Pearce stuff over at the Graun.

    (Delingpole aficionados please note, you might like Fred Pearce's Climategate stuff.)

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change

    Complain about this comment

  • 447. At 3:44pm on 09 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    wrote:

    bowmanthebard #436: "If the theory of AGW is incapable of making even a rough prediction of the climate just five or ten years in advance, then it's no good."

    DisgustedOfMitcham2 #439: "On what basis do you say that?"

    We do not have a good reason to think a hypothesis mirrors the real world (i.e. is approximately true) unless it has been tested in some way. Just making it up specially to fit prior "data" isn't a test, because the hypothesis cannot fail to fit "data" it has been made up ad hoc to fit.

    There are endless possible tests of Newton's Laws, from rolling a ball down an inclined plane to firing a cannon at an angle. We don't have to do an all-in-one prediction of some future state of the entire Solar System to get a better idea if we're on the right track.

    Similarly modest tests of AGW hypotheses are surely poossible: for example, you might take two containers, with carefully-measured amounts of CO2, water vapour, carefully-controlled incident light, and so on, and try to predict differences in heat loss over a given period of time. The accuracy or otherwise of those experiemntal tests would be very telling.

    "Why does it need to make predictions over such as short timescale?"

    But why does it have to be all-or-nothing, the whole hog, either-you-swallow-the-whole-package-or-we-all-die-screaming with AGW theory? We wouldn't dream of sending men to the moon without many, many tests, both modest and ambitious, of both rockets and Newton's Laws. We don't have to choose between going or not going!

    "Anyway, do you think you can predict the climate over the next 5 to 10 years?"

    No, because I think the climate is inherently unpredictable -- there are far, far too many variables, and initial conditions, and critical dependencies, and unique unrepeatable conditions, and so on. However, if I thought human life depended on my being right about the greenhouse effect, I would get two very large, carefully-controlled tanks of air, and see how well my hypotheses about CO2, water vapour etc. fared in simplified, ideal conditions. Then I would have a better idea about how the real world works.

    Complain about this comment

  • 448. At 3:46pm on 09 Feb 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    # 441 Jane definately outside local plod experience especial for Norfolk. Still it is a very strange thing to do as I said at 395.

    Now I could guess. However, as in most cases with British Law there is always something else you can use in many given situations.

    I once arrested two guys who were just being a total pain and generally unpleasant, for "shooting rabbits at night". The custody Sgt had kittens (pun intended)when I told him he had to distribute the Coney's to the needy of the community and their shotguns had to be auctioned by the County Sheriff.

    Oh well back to AGW

    Complain about this comment

  • 449. At 3:57pm on 09 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Richard Black

    Don't know what you are preparing for your next piece. You've already referenced Fred Pearce's journalism once. Well the stuff out today goes much much further. His work is worth a story in its own right.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/climate-wars-hacked-emails

    Complain about this comment

  • 450. At 4:07pm on 09 Feb 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #422 poitsplace
    "AGW alarmism is multifaceted but for these fears to become reality it requires multiple aspects of existing, VERY poorly understood systems to show behaviors that are quite frankly...not likely."

    since you have no scientific evidence to back up this statement it is purely an article of faith. you may not like climate science, but at least it is science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 451. At 4:10pm on 09 Feb 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    This will upset a few people but it appears a GISS reviewer condemned AR4 chapter 9, way to go Bishop

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/9/hansens-colleague-eviscerates-ar4-chapter-9.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 452. At 4:11pm on 09 Feb 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #425 bowman
    "Even "Cartesian scepticism" is not global." - what on earth is that supposed to mean? what is global scepticism?

    and science can't explain the origin of the universe since all scientific laws apply to 'this' universe so cannot apply.

    Complain about this comment

  • 453. At 4:23pm on 09 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    #447:

    "Similarly modest tests of AGW hypotheses are surely poossible: for example, you might take two containers, with carefully-measured amounts of CO2, water vapour, carefully-controlled incident light, and so on, and try to predict differences in heat loss over a given period of time. The accuracy or otherwise of those experiemntal tests would be very telling."

    Like this, you mean?

    Complain about this comment

  • 454. At 4:30pm on 09 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    #451:

    Can you check that link? Doesn't seem to work when I click on it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 455. At 4:32pm on 09 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Kamboshigh

    "County sheriff"? You know "sheriff" means "shire reeve" means "county reeve" don't you? So "county sheriff" would be "county county reeve".

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

    Still not as bad as Torpenhow Hill (Hill-hill-hill Hill)

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

    :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 456. At 4:50pm on 09 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #452 rossglory wrote:

    '"Even "Cartesian scepticism" is not global." - what on earth is that supposed to mean? what is global scepticism?'

    Here, 'global' means "of everything" as opposed to local meaning "of just this or that particular region".

    The point I was making was that to doubt anything, you have to not doubt something else. For example, if you doubt homeopathy, you probably accept that the more diluted a substance is, the weaker its effects must be.

    Descartes is famous for suspending belief in absolutely everything of which he was uncertain. He found that the only thing he could be certain of was "I think, therefore I am" -- in other words, he could not doubt the existence of his own consciousness. (Cartesian = of Descartes)

    davblo said I was not really being a sceptic, because I doubted climate science by not doubting my own understanding of scientific method. I was trying to say that that is the only scepticism possible.

    Complain about this comment

  • 457. At 5:00pm on 09 Feb 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #450 Ross erh, there is no such thing as Climate Science as such just a lot of soft sciences that are involved.

    However, I have found out that the University of Easy Access will be possibly offering a PhD course in Climate Science from Sept. 2010.

    Just speculating it will involve specifics in how to delete data that does not meet your actual requirements. How to Cherry Pick, how to make a total mess of forlain code, how to lie with statistics, how to leave incriminating evidence on an ftp server, how to attack anybody who disagrees with you, create your own peer-review system, how to make money from gov't grant opportunities. But the main core will be is how to avoid freedom of information requests.

    Field research will involve UN funded trips to Bali and other exotic locations on a regular basis so just bring your toothbrush. Carbon offsets are of course paid up front by UK tax payers and not part of the course fees.

    Your PhD thesis will of course show that the globe will warm by 6.4C by 2100

    Complain about this comment

  • 458. At 5:17pm on 09 Feb 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Blogging here is much more fun than churning out risk assessment documents. The rabbit story interested me. There is a law in the UK that says that you cannot pick up game road kill if you were the driver running over the game. However, if you are in the car behind, you are allowed to pick up the 'pot luck.'
    Now they are recalling Japanese cars because the brakes don't work. Does this mean the end of the free lunch or is it just a temporary lull in Japanese CO2 pollution?

    Complain about this comment

  • 459. At 5:18pm on 09 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #453 DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    "Like this, you mean?"

    Well, that's the basic idea, but I'm talking about something on a much grander scale, that will really put our grasp of the effects of CO2 versus water vapour to the test, and preferably takes clouds into account as well.

    There have been some truly massive tests/experiments. The Large Hadron Collider is the most obvious one. There are lots of cheaper yet still very ambitious experiments -- such as that guy who filled gigantic underground tanks with cleaning fluid to look for neutrinos. And the later Michelson experiments were exquisitely engineered, with the whole apparatus sitting in a huge tank of mercury, and so on.

    If human survival depends on it, surely we should "ask the world a question" and see what the world answers, to try to find out what we really know? Even if we are right, our knowledge is always more sparse than we think, because it's just what we can draw out of a small number of "questions" like that. It's crazy to "base" everything on supposed prior "data" -- that's no better than consulting scripture. And because the "scripture" is full of detail, it gives the completely misleading impression that our knowledge of the world is also fine-grained and detailed in the same way.

    Alas -- it isn't!

    Complain about this comment

  • 460. At 5:43pm on 09 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Kamboshigh #451
    (@DisgustedOfMitcham2)

    Bishop Hill's wording may be misleading.

    The complaint is about the Executive Summary of Chapter Nine. The Executive Summary appears to be an introductory summary to Chapter Nine, rather than the whole of Chapter Nine.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html
    http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7798293?n=17

    Complain about this comment

  • 461. At 6:27pm on 09 Feb 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #453:

    "Like this, you mean?"

    If that's typical of what's being taught in schools then it's no wonder we're turning out a generation of scientifically-illiterate students.

    That "experiment" involves measuring the relative temperatures of two unmeasured and unknown mixtures of gases, within containers of unknown transmission characteristics, heated by uncalibrated light sources an unspecified distance away, with no compensation considered for the effects of inhibiting convection, and finally measured with thermometers of unspecified calibration.

    It would, at best, give some indication of the differing thermal capacities of the two gas mixtures, but it won't tell you anything about the 'greenhouse' properties - much less give an accurate measurement thereof.

    That 'experiment' appears to be nothing more than anti-scientific propaganda.

    Complain about this comment

  • 462. At 6:30pm on 09 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    #459:

    "Well, that's the basic idea, but I'm talking about something on a much grander scale"

    So does CO2 undergo some magical transition to not being a greenhouse gas if there is more of it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 463. At 7:13pm on 09 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #462 DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    "does CO2 undergo some magical transition to not being a greenhouse gas if there is more of it?"

    No one disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the question is how it works as a greenhouse gas together with water vapour and water as an aerosol, presumably in layers, with very fine adjustments to the concentration of both, which I'd guess wouldn't be easy without a very large quantity of air, in isolation from other all the other effects that cause extraneous "noise" in the actual atmosphere.

    Complain about this comment

  • 464. At 7:21pm on 09 Feb 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #442:

    Jane,

    I couldn't agree more about the loss of village shops etc.

    However, while people not using their cars for short trips, for example, may give them a warm, fuzzy feeling that they're doing some good, it really has a quite insignificant effect on carbon emissions.
    Also, trying to push 'environmentally friendly' cars onto people won't wash much with those who can scarcely afford to buy a 10-year old 2nd-hand car.

    All that is tinkering around the edges.

    Things that many people are concerned about, and more should be, include that energy costs are projected to rise by as much as 500% over the next few years, that the already swingeing taxes on petrol and diesel will be increasing ever more, that industry is already deserting our shores in their droves, that widespread and regular blackouts are set to become the order of the day within a few years, and the list goes on.

    All in the name of, perhaps, delaying a small temperature increase for a few short years.

    If this issue is so vitally important, then it's even more vitally important that science is seen to be absolutely squeaky-clean, absolutely transparent, open to criticism, completely impartial and completely free of political bias and spin.
    Without that, people are just not going to be prepared to pay any price whatsoever.

    Complain about this comment

  • 465. At 7:26pm on 09 Feb 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #462:

    "So does CO2 undergo some magical transition to not being a greenhouse gas if there is more of it?"

    Not at all, but any experiments have to be done on a much grander and controlled scale in order to be able to detect any effect at all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 466. At 9:16pm on 09 Feb 2010, neil_london wrote:

    #464

    Yes I agree we need to drive a bit less.

    My problem is, I drove 5 miles less as the government wish but got arrested for parking on the M25 on my way to work.

    Government policy really is a shambles!

    Complain about this comment

  • 467. At 10:03pm on 09 Feb 2010, b5happy wrote:


    Rest assured, #465, "experiments" are being "done on a much grander and

    controlled scale"...

    The Sun is the fuel and the Earth is the machine.

    All will be revealed in good "order"...

    We will "be able to detect any effect at all"...

    Rest assured, #465

    Complain about this comment

  • 468. At 10:09pm on 09 Feb 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Is this a consensus... From an insider IPCC

    From Watts up:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/hansen-colleague-rejected-ipcc-ar4-es-as-having-no-scientific-merit-but-what-does-ipcc-do/

    I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a colleague of James Hansen’s at GISS.
    Lacis’s is not a name I’ve come across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the IPCC’s report is simply breathtaking.

    Chapter 9 is possibly the most important one in the whole IPCC report – it’s the one where they decide that global warming is manmade. This is the one where the headlines are made.

    Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic, and you may need to remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his comment on the executive summary of the chapter:

    "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted."

    I’m speechless. The chapter authors, however weren’t. This was their reply (all of it):

    Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature.

    Simply astonishing. This is a consensus?"

    Complain about this comment

  • 469. At 10:18pm on 09 Feb 2010, LarryKealey wrote:


    @DisgustedOfMitcham2

    If the temperature is 'rising' as so many people would have us believe, then please tell me the current temperature of the Earth (not the temperature of London at ground level, nor the Temperature above New York City at 2000 ft - but the temperature of the globe).

    The please tell me how you arrived at that temperature for the Earth? What assumptions were used in determining that temperature. Keep in mind that the earth does not have a 'temperature' - temperature is simply how we measure heat content.

    Now please tell me the margin of error for your temperature measurements. and how you arrived at that margin of error.

    Then, please tell me the deviation from the 'normal' or baseline, of the earth's temperature - and exactly how you arrived at what is baseline.

    If you are averaging temperature at certain specific points on land, which have changed in number and location over the baseline period, how can you determine the margin of error?

    While Richard points out that some areas are experiencing colder than 'baseline' weather and some areas are experiencing warmer than 'baseline temperatures - is that not always the case?

    Please enlighten me. While it doesn't make the headlines very much - there is much disagreement with regards to what exactly is the Earth's temperature and how to effectively measure it. More profoundly, what we really should be determining is the heat content of the planet.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 470. At 10:31pm on 09 Feb 2010, LarryKealey wrote:


    @JaneBasingstoke

    I find your comment regarding the 'village shops' quite interesting - sounds like you are saying: "You Americans change your lifestyle dramatically, but don't touch my little inefficient, but cute village lifestyle"? Is that the case?

    Here we have 'Super Walmart' - my ex-fiance's mother likes to say, if you can't find it at walmart - you don't need it. They literally have just about everything you could want - and at very low prices. Why? Because they are very efficient at transporting and delivering goods - much more so than a hundred individual shops could every be.

    People here fought walmart 20 years ago - and they lost. The town square (or village square) adapted or died.

    Sounds like - everyone else needs to change their lifestyle - but you get to keep your inefficient style of living because you like it - how hypocritical of you, as you burn African coal to stay warm while refusing financing for African coal plants - so they can stay warm...

    Yes, never mind the carbon when it comes to YOUR lifestyle.

    -Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 471. At 11:11pm on 09 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Peter317 #464

    "All that is tinkering around the edges."

    Never said it wasn't. It was a response to someone else's comment. And the environmentally friendly car quote wasn't mine, it was the quote I was responding to. Hence the quote marks ("") and italics (italics), like the way I've quoted you above.

    I was not attempting to present the fix for global warming. If it were that easy it would have been fixed back in 1988.

    And the big rises in energy costs that will happen won't be down to green taxes, they'll be down to pure market forces.

    http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/fds/hi/business/market_data/commodities/143908/twelve_month.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 472. At 11:31pm on 09 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LarryKealey #470

    Whoa. Why is everyone misinterpreting my post? No way is that what I am saying.

    I was responding to someone else's comment. I was basically agreeing with jon112uk that fixing AGW without impacting ordinary people's lifestyles was preferable to some sort of green hair shirt.

    Saving village shops seemed an example of a painless way of reducing carbon emissions. And I don't ask people to make sacrifices that I wouldn't be prepared to make myself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 473. At 11:47pm on 09 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    LarryKealey #470.

    "They [supermakets] literally have just about everything you could want - and at very low prices. Why? Because they are very efficient at transporting and delivering goods - much more so than a hundred individual shops could every be."

    more like they're very good at using their near monopoly to their advantage.

    for instance milk:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112002639

    http://www.thegreatmilkrobbery.co.uk/news.html

    the same holds true for other goods too; you too do enjoy cheap shoes made by children in Vietnam, don't you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 474. At 11:54pm on 09 Feb 2010, LarryKealey wrote:


    Saving village shops is not an example of reducing CO2 emissions - remember, we are not talking about carbon here - but CO2.

    Be real - all those mom and pop shops vs something like Walmart - or - can't remember the name of the UK equivalent - ask Monbiot, he just did a piece a few months ago about how his 'village' should be saved...

    Are you that daft - regardless of whether you were responding, you did say (and repeat) that saving village shops seems an example of a painless way of reducing carbon emissions. Did you not?

    Well, you are dead wrong. One store vs one hundred shops? Which will require more energy? One trip to the mega-mart or a dozen trips to a dozen places to do the shopping. Twenty delivery trucks going to one store from a massive distribution center built on a railhead - or five hundred trucks makings stops at one hundred shops.

    Please choose your metric - the village is not efficient. Why do you think the big chains can cut them out with lower prices? Because of efficiency, reduced cost, which equals reduced energy consumption.

    While I don't buy into the whole 'one poison' CO2 thing - you obviously do, and for you to suggest that a hundred little shops is more efficient and has smaller footprint than one megastore just points to your ignorance dear.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 475. At 11:54pm on 09 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LarryKealey #470

    PS, thought the reason big stores outcompeted small ones was economy of scale in stocking and staffing, bigger advertising budgets, loss leaders and large market share (forces suppliers to slash their prices).

    Yes, economy of scale does reduce the carbon costs in stocking the shop.

    But if you want to look at carbon costs you have to all of them, including the customer getting the shopping home.

    And that final leg of your shopping's journey is a big chunk of the transport costs, because the shopping is such a small proportion of the weight of your car.

    So if WalMart is on your doorstep then of course it's lower carbon to shop there. Economies of scale.

    But if WalMart is a half hour round trip then you need to do more sums before you can say it saves carbon.

    Complain about this comment

  • 476. At 00:51am on 10 Feb 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    A very interesting guest post by Jerome Ravetz of Oxford University:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/climategate-plausibility-and-the-blogosphere-in-the-post-normal-age/#more-16262

    Complain about this comment

  • 477. At 02:15am on 10 Feb 2010, who said what wrote:

    For those of you who like lists.....

    A complete list of things caused by global warming

    http://sppiblog.org/news/a-complete-list-of-things-caused-by-global-warming#more-1029

    Complain about this comment

  • 478. At 02:36am on 10 Feb 2010, jazbo wrote:

    @ 453. At 4:23pm on 09 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2

    So the kiddies science experiment will do the job then as proof? Nice to see the curriculum is also loaded with pre-conceptions these days.

    I did not see the experiment in your link mention ensuring that the ratio of C02 is 387 parts per million, and that the light is carefully calibrated to represent the sun with fluctuations in heat, and for all the other positive and negative forcings to be taken into account, you know the ones such as cloud cover that even the climate scientists admit they cannot model.

    If that's not possible, then maybe your point, and the school experiment, are completely irrelevant.

    Complain about this comment

  • 479. At 03:18am on 10 Feb 2010, HungeryWalleye wrote:

    I think the FlatEarther will have a hard time convincing those who died in the European heat wave or the Midwestern heat wave that warmer is better. Similarly, I doubt Indian farmers watching deserts advance through areas that use to be jungle 80 years ago are hoping for warmer weather. Ditto for cattle herders and farmers in the Sahel. I don’t even think farmers whose grandparents remember the dust bowl in the Great Plains are looking for warmer weather either. But then what do you expect from some one who takes pride in being a FlatEarther. He has been reading too many reports from corporate shills like the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 480. At 04:12am on 10 Feb 2010, HungeryWalleye wrote:

    Anyone looking for 100% certainty in Climate science will never be satisfied. Most of the posts to this blog do not engage the science. They constitute primarily ad homonym attacks on the data, the models and the scientists involved. The fact that so many Climate scientists would agree on the theory of AGW is quite unusual except for well-founded theories like Evolution, Continental Drift, Relativistic Physics, etc. It is ironic that Climate models are attacked because they are models. What do people think their brains do about the ‘Reality’ they perceive through their senses. Do they think there is a little projection screen in their brain. Have they ever gone from not wearing glasses to wearing them and noticed how floors tend to tilt until your brain adjusts and modifies it’s model of reality.

    Some AGW deniers claim the climate is cooling (against the evidence from both global ground networks and observations from space), some claim there is warming but warming is good, some claim warming is happening but not caused by human emissions; therefore, nothing can be done about it. But they are all united that nothing should be done about emissions. That is the key to their belief, they are willing to accept any idea as long as the status quo is protected. Of course burning coal produces emissions with more immediate impact on the environment and human health than CO2 (Mercury, a bio-amplified neurotoxin, sulfates, the cause of acid rain, and radioactive elements that proponents of nuclear like to point out exceed those emitted by nuclear power plants).

    Complain about this comment

  • 481. At 06:04am on 10 Feb 2010, lburt wrote:

    @HungeryWalleye #479 RE:heat wave deaths
    If you'll check up on the differences in the death rate between seasons you will find that the "excess deaths" for the winter season are ALWAYS higher by far than those for the summer season. The year of the heat wave was no exception. There are more excess winter deaths in the UK alone than there were in the summer for all of europe. In the USA there are typically over a hundred thousand excess deaths during the winter season every year. Every year there is a particularly bad winter, the figures spike even higher. The trend had been generally down until the wintery weather returned in 2007/2008. I'm guessing it will be about a 30-50% increase over previous years so the US will have around 150000 excess deaths, the UK around 50000 excess deaths. Hopefully I'll be wrong.

    @rossglory #450 who wrote...
    (in response to me pointing out that for there to be need for alarm requires multiple scenarios to be successively correct and that this is unlikely)

    "since you have no scientific evidence to back up this statement it is purely an article of faith. you may not like climate science, but at least it is science."

    No, it's not science. Its poorly supported conjecture. Real-world temperatures are riding the lower edge of the error bars of the IPCC's models. You alarmists are claiming we must defend against the high end projections when the models are largely disproved by their own criteria (the error bars). Only the lowest of model projections seems to have any possibility to be correct now. Leading up to copenhagen they were talking about needing to take steps to limit temperature increases to below 2C. Well, if the ACTUAL temperatures are any indication (correct me if I'm wrong but aren't they the ONLY indication?) we won't be getting over that even with business as usual.

    THEN we have the issue of the poorly conceived projections about damage caused by any warming. Not only do they not make a lot of sense when we compare their results to history...many require amounts of warming that we are clearly not having. The rate of increase in sea level has been fairly constant and caused little trouble for the last 100 years. In fact, coastal cities in developed nations seem to have expanded during this time. We've enjoyed extended and even additional growing seasons. The earth's plant life is growing faster (both from having milder conditions AND from increased CO2).

    Both of these seem to be WAY off. We aren't warming at anywhere near the rates you people are suggesting and the warming actually seems to have been HELPFUL. I get the feeling that after this bitter winter much of the support for this idiotic "warming is dangerous" idea will be put to rest...the excess deaths and disruptions to society from this winter will make you long for the days of the big european heatwave.

    Complain about this comment

  • 482. At 06:48am on 10 Feb 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Here’s a tantalising new bit of research just published - only a correlation, but an apparently strong one… and one anticipated by several climate models.

    A study has explored a correlation between rain-fall (or the lack thereof) in the south-western corner of Australia and snow-falls in an ‘adjacent’ region of eastern Antarctica. When the former suffers a drought, the latter is often battered with heavy snowfalls. The researchers identified a consistent pattern which has been changing apparently outside the normal range of variation only over the past several decades. Intriguingly, several climate models suggest such a change would be the likely outcome when models factor in recent increases of GHG emissions.

    Source: Tas D. van Ommen & Vin Morgan, “Snowfall increase in coastal East Antarctica linked with southwest Western Australian drought”, Nature Geoscience, published online 7 February 2010.

    Complain about this comment

  • 483. At 06:54am on 10 Feb 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Poitsplace at #481

    Admittedly, a bit tongue in cheek, but this “bitter winter” you refer to is not “bitter” enough for some, apparently…

    “Organisers have been forced to transport snow to one of the Vancouver Olympic sites because of unseasonally high temperatures.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympic_games/vancouver_2010/8494794.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 484. At 07:12am on 10 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    rossglory #450: "you may not like climate science, but at least it is science."

    poitsplace #481: "No, it's not science. Its poorly supported conjecture."

    In my view, the problem is that it isn't conjectural enough. Instead of honestly guessing and then testing its guesses, it extrapolates from the "data" of the climate record, thereby amplifying the latter's extraneous noise.

    It's a plodding methodology whose results are dictated by past "data" instead of tested against the real world.

    Perhaps that is why climate "science" is so popular: because there is little apparent guesswork (i.e. conjecture) involved, it looks more "certain" to the untrained eye. The yearning for certainty -- or at least lack of culpability through making mistaken guesses -- is a nearly universal human failing.

    The appeal to certainty among climatology-supporters reaches a climax in the ludicrous popular claim that "the science is 90% certain". As if a scientific theory contained its own measure of how much you can trust it!

    Complain about this comment

  • 485. At 07:26am on 10 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #480 HungeryWalleye wrote:

    "They constitute primarily ad homonym attacks on the data, the models and the scientists involved."

    An ad hominem attack is always "against the man". (Unless you really do mean "ad homonym", which would mean "against words that have two meanings", in which case I'm all for ad homonym attacks!)

    Except in cases where a witness is giving testimony, and the trustworthiness of the witness gives some indication of how likely what he says is to be true, the character of a man defending a theory is irreleveant. The ad hominem fallacy is a so-called "fallacy of relevance".

    Attacking the data and models of climate "science" is an entirely appropriate thing for its critics to do. The models of climate "science" are analogous to hypotheses.

    "The fact that so many Climate scientists would agree on the theory of AGW is quite unusual except for well-founded theories like Evolution, Continental Drift, Relativistic Physics, etc."

    I cannot speak for plate techtonics, but I assure you that there is a great deal of disagreement in physics and evolutionary theory -- have you not heard of "the Darwin Wars"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 486. At 07:45am on 10 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #472 JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    "Saving village shops seemed an example of a painless way of reducing carbon emissions."

    How does that work? -- In the one village I know where a political lobby has prevented the arrival of Tesco, its continued absence is not considered at all "painless". The villagers feel the "pain" of big prices and small variety so much they drive their SUVs many miles to reach properly-stocked, affordably-priced supermarkets.

    Complain about this comment

  • 487. At 08:45am on 10 Feb 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #481 poitsplace
    "I get the feeling that after this bitter winter much of the support for this idiotic "warming is dangerous" idea will be put to rest."

    so called commonsense can be so misleading. you look out your window and see a bitter winter, others don't (did you not see my previous post about rain). in fact if you're of a scientific bent you see 2009 was again one of the warmest and january exceptionally so.

    so the planet is still warming (despite a recent la nina and low sunspot activity...which btw is just picking up again) and within model variability. and the only thing that can explain it are ghgs.

    and yet none of this seems to concern you at all. next time you buy glasses maybe suggest they don;t include the rose tint.

    Complain about this comment

  • 488. At 08:52am on 10 Feb 2010, Dave_oxon wrote:

    @Mango #444

    "My argument is calculation alone without taking into account water vapour / clouds is simply incorrect... Unless somebody has a link to a paper that shows high sensitivity, which includes water vapour / clouds (which are an overall negative feedback)..."
    2 minutes with a famous scholarly search engine turned up this:

    "Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor"
    Brian J. Soden et al.
    Science: Vol. 296. (2002), pp. 727 - 730

    I'm afraid I have only had time to look at the abstract so cannot comment on the detail but this appears to contain some of the type of research you have asked for.

    (@bowman - I accept that this paper details with modelling previously collected data so, with your permission, I will consider it as "inadmissable" in any further debates with yourself).

    In particular their findings are (again, just from the abstract) that the negative feedback process of water vapour contained in their model is necessary to re-produce the observed global cooling... indeed the cooling cannot be modelled without it. This forms the basis of the argument that the water vapour feedback in the general climate models is appropriately modelled.

    Complain about this comment

  • 489. At 08:54am on 10 Feb 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #457 kamboshigh
    i'm so glad you couldn't put together a serious response...makes my point for me. thanks

    Complain about this comment

  • 490. At 09:02am on 10 Feb 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @480
    " But they are all united that nothing should be done about emissions. That is the key to their belief, they are willing to accept any idea as long as the status quo is protected"

    catagorically wrong.

    attack via prejudice. nothing more.

    Complain about this comment

  • 491. At 09:54am on 10 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #488 Dave_oxon wrote:

    "@bowman - I accept that this paper details with modelling previously collected data so, with your permission, I will consider it as "inadmissable" in any further debates with yourself)."

    Thanks -- I wouldn't bother reading it. Even if the data were wholly unimpeachable, they wouldn't be representative of the climate in general, so it would be a mistake to base an induction on them. Just as the weather isn't representative of the climate, the previous climate isn't either!

    Complain about this comment

  • 492. At 10:31am on 10 Feb 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #487 rossglory wrote:

    "so called commonsense can be so misleading."

    I agree, but common sense is more trustworthy than anything else we have. When we allow anything to overrule common sense, it's because some bits of common sense overrule other bits of common sense.

    For example, common sense tells us that physics is an extremely successful set of theories with very impressive predictive powers. But although most physics is consistent with common sense, some bits aren't. We accept those bits, even though they overrule some common sense, but only because common sense itself sanctions it.

    (This is originally a point Bertrand Russell made about what he called "naive realism".)

    Complain about this comment

  • 493. At 10:50am on 10 Feb 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100025592/ipcc-fourth-assessment-report-is-rubbish-says-yet-another-expert/

    Complain about this comment

  • 494. At 12:01pm on 10 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    #478:

    Yes, it is a school experiment that I linked to. That's the whole point. The idea that it's somehow not really known to science whether CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and that cutting edge experiments by highly qualified scientists are required is laughable. Scientists did those experiments back in the 19th century. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So to those who don't believe that CO2 is capable of causing warming, you should realise that even a schoolboy can demonstrate that it is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 495. At 12:13pm on 10 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    #463, bowmanthebard:

    "No one disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the question is how it works as a greenhouse gas together with water vapour and water as an aerosol"

    Hold on a minute, you mean there's water vapour in the atmosphere? I never knew that. Do you think it might have some thermal properties as well? That's pretty startling. Clearly, all the climate models are wrong. I'm sure that none of the client scientists have ever realised that there was water vapour in the atmosphere, let alone water aerosols. This is a major revelation. Please don't bury it in some blog that won't get read in the right circles. I think you have a duty to write immediately to the IPCC and point out that all their models are wrong because no-one has heard of atmospheric water vapour. And you should also publish your findings in a major peer-reviewed journal. I suggest Nature for something of this importance.

    Complain about this comment

  • 496. At 12:26pm on 10 Feb 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke #442, #472.
    LarryKealey #470.

    "Saving village shops seemed an example of a painless way of reducing carbon emissions."

    maybe this isn't the point of village shops vs supermarkets anyway.

    couple of weeks ago we (ie a majority of (regular) contributors) seemed to agree that variety and redundancy are 'good things' from a biodiversity point of view.

    I simply cannot understand why some (like Larry, or the resident philosophical curmudgeon) are for supermarkets (ie monoculture) now; why should human behaviour be excempt from 'natural' rules?

    what would happen in times of a transport crisis (ala 1972/3)? all eggs in one basket, and the basket empty because the lorries don't roll?

    no, all the pro-supermarket arguments I've read (here), whether or not they include CO2 as an argument, are shallow -- to suit their own convenience.

    Complain about this comment

  • 497. At 12:40pm on 10 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    Sorry, obviously I meant "climate scientists", not "client scientists" at #495.

    Complain about this comment

  • 498. At 12:49pm on 10 Feb 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    #493:

    Interesting link. Apparently someone thinks the executive summary to chapter 9 of the IPCC's AR4 report is rubbish. It would be interesting to know what the specific flaws are that he doesn't believe is backed up by the science, but he doesn't seem to say.

    It's also not clear whether he thinks it's inconsistent with the main text of chapter 9 or whether he thinks there are any flaws in the main text.

    Personally, I would never say something is rubbish without giving specific reasons.

    Complain about this comment

  • 499. At 1:00pm on 10 Feb 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    #494:

    That schoolboy experiment does NOT demonstrate that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - all it demonstrates is that the gases in the two bottles have a different thermal capacity.
    Yes, science DOES know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - that doesn't have to be demonstrated.
    But what science DOES NOT know is the precise measure of CO2's 'greenhouse effect'.
    We don't need to DEMONSTRATE the greenhouse effect (what your schoolboy experiment doesn't do, anyway), reather we need to QUANTIFY it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 500. At 1:14pm on 10 Feb 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #486

    You're moving the goalposts.

    We were discussing the benefits of economies of scale. This style of shop involves individual stores with a large floor area. Such individual stores have huge catchment areas. Therefore most of the customers have a comparatively long drive to get to them.

    And huge catchment areas are an essential part of the economies of scale. Tesco can't afford a big supermarket for every village, no matter how keen the locals.

    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.