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

Petrolheads steer for green track

Richard Black | 16:40 UK time, Wednesday, 30 June 2010

I know some regular readers have me pegged as a bleeding heart liberal who's racked with pangs of self-hatred if I should so much as cycle over a worm or eat anything more technological than home-knitted organic muesli; so it may come as a shock that I really enjoy the high-octane buzz and top-end thrills of motor racing.

Yes, I know - the huge carbon footprint, the high-consumption lifestyles of the rich and famous, the gender division apparent in the way the drivers walk through an avenue of scantily-clad beauties on their way back from slaying a buffalo for dinner - sorry, winning a race - the blatant product placement, the publicity-hungry hangers-on...

But think instead of the skill involved in putting your car six inches from a concrete wall at 200km/hr, the quick-wittedness of the passing, the sheer technological exuberance of the chariots... well, it works for me.

McLaren_car_in_Grand_PrixIt clearly works also for people with real expertise in design and engineering. No surprise there; what would you rather work on - a Ferrari Formula One car or a Renault Clio?

One insider told me that if you want a technical job in F1, don't even bother applying unless you've got a top-line PhD as a minimum.

And that's what's intriguing, I think, about the "green" progress that Formula One has just unveiled, and the package of technological advances it's working on.

The goal that teams are probably going to settle on is this: to virtually double fuel efficiency of their cars between 2013 and 2018, with no loss of performance.

Out will go the 2.4-litre normally-aspirated V8 engines of current design. In will come something more akin on paper to what you'd find in the average family car these days - maybe 1.5-litre, turbocharged, in either a straight-4-cylinder or V6 configuration.

Fuel consumption would be cut from about 160kg per race to about 80kg. Yet they'd still accelerate from 0 to 100 in a flash and top 300km/hr.

The word is that the engine manufacturers - Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari and Cosworth - think this is do-able.

Ladies_watching_GPIf they're right, the big question is what it means for ordinary vehicles, from luxury liners of the road to carbon-fibre three-wheelers, from juggernauts to motorised rickshaws.

Lawmakers in the EU, US and elsewhere are mandating improved energy efficiency standards for vehicles. But the auto industry hasn't always lived up to promises in the past - and where is it going to get its ideas from, in any case, for leaner cars that we still want to drive?

I don't want to get carried away here, but what you have with the F1 brains trust is a kind of mini-Manhattan Project for auto engines. Set a demanding goal, provide a major pot of money and point enough brainy people in the right direction, and you stand a good chance of making it work - that's the theory, anyway.

It might seem a less purist approach to cutting carbon emissions than signing a global treaty on the subject, but that doesn't mean it won't bring in real savings - and even if you're not in the anthropogenic climate change camp, you might still appreciate the idea for the delay it will would bring to the onset of peak oil.

My colleague Andrew Benson who covers F1 for his day job has written more on this, so do read his thoughts if you're interested.

A petrolhead and a woolly tree-hugger writing the same kind of story - who'da thunk it?

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 7:26pm on 30 Jun 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    The F-l's do not burn the same petrol that one might purchase at a station so it is different in that regard. Personally, I would like to see a hydrogen engine that made these things go. They are the most advanced engineered autos in the world. If they were a bit slower but still attracted the scantily clad women attendance would remain the same. Better milage is not the solution, a new fuel source is. I wonder if moving these racers all over the world costs as much as the $1 billion for the G20 Summit in Canada and as best I could tell none of those attending were scantily clad although all were naked in their support of bankers..

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 9:14pm on 30 Jun 2010, crash wrote:

    How long are we going to let the eco-nazis invade every facet of our lives.May be the one day the great global warming myth will fade and we go back to enjoying racing and our everyday hobbies in peace.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 9:42pm on 30 Jun 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    Crash:

    I am sure the political and banking nazis agree with you. If you could only send everyone you disagree with to a re-education camp.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 10:13pm on 30 Jun 2010, manysummits wrote:

    I used to follow Formula 1 with a passion, and have been known, in a time long long ago, to have misplaced my driver's license, or rather more accurately, it was taken from me, for too much practice in the art of high speed street driving. That was in Saskatchewan.

    So I moved to British Columbia, and while working at a pulp mill on the other side of Howe Sound, I borrowed a friend's Jaguar, and - got ticketed passing on a curve, without a license. I must have been a good talker, because I didn't end up in jail, and a half year later, back in Saskatchewan, I was called onto the carpet by the motor bureau, as they had been informed of my Jaguar antics. More talking, and I got my license back.

    Gentlemen, start your engines!


    - Manysummits -

    PS: I was a huge fan of Jim Clark and Collin Chapman's team Lotus.

    Of course I am much

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 11:34pm on 30 Jun 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    "I know some regular readers have me pegged as a bleeding heart liberal who's racked with pangs of self-hatred if I should so much as cycle over a worm or eat anything more technological than home-knitted organic muesli"

    How could we POSSIBLY think that...

    On topic though, this is interesting as it will lead to more efficient engines in real cars.

    I'm not a fan of F1 personally, but on the other hand it has led to significant advances in automotive technology so it's worth it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 00:00am on 01 Jul 2010, Skittler wrote:

    Carbon footprints are total nonsense! I have no quibble with them improving performance, using less fuel, as our governments are hell bent on making petrol more expensive than gold, so any help that the F1 engineers can come up with will be great, but for the sake of us, not the idiotic MMCC believers, who just love to have a campaign about something, anything, it's all they have in their lives!

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 01:18am on 01 Jul 2010, TaiwanChallenges wrote:

    I read somewhere that all sports are just a way of making things more difficult for the fun of it, and introducing new rules for F1 sounds like a perfect example. Maybe all those super-qualified engineers got bored trying to squeeze another half-HP out of the existing engines, and got together one night in a bar to find a way to make their job more fun.

    "I know, let's build a whole new kind of engine and car to go with it!" saild one bright spark, and voila, the revolution was born.

    Not that this is a bad thing, unless you believe that there are too many cars on the roads already and anything that makes things easier for motorists is bad for the overall human environment.....

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 01:36am on 01 Jul 2010, TaiwanChallenges wrote:

    Richard, I have a question about climate change - something that nobody can possible deny exists because all the evidence shows that it has always existed.

    After all, London was once home to mangrove swamps, the Vikings had farms in Greenland that became untenable as the world entered the little ice-age.

    So here's my question: imagine if you will that someone invents a viable clean energy source tomorrow and it is adopted worldwide, along with various other measures that somehow magically enable us to end all the other CO2 emissions involved in manufacturing, etc., (or if you prefer just imagine that everyone is killed by a new killer virus) ... what will the global climate be like in a hundred years?

    The current campaign to reduce CO2 emissions is predicated on two beliefs, both of which are dangerously false:
    - that everything would be OK, ie the same as before, if humans didn't cause change
    - that we, humans, actually know what the consequences of our actions will be

    I'm pretty sure that the fossil record disproves the first, and Edward Lorenz disproved the second when he discovered the butterfly effect 50 years ago.

    Climate change is real and unavoidable, all human activity has an effect, these are undeniable. But nobody knows what's going on and making policy on the assumption that X will result in Y is just silly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 01:46am on 01 Jul 2010, TaiwanChallenges wrote:

    Does anyone remember the ozone layer? I ask purely because twenty years ago this was the most pressing problem the human race faced. We were all on the edge of extinction as increased UV threatened to not only give us all cancer but also kill all our food crops.

    Did we ever find a solution? Or was it just hype? Or are we just ignoring the problem now?

    Either we all faced extinction, and now we don't (I must have missed the announcement that the world has been saved), or we still face extinction but we're not talking about it any more, or we never did.

    I find it very hard to know what to believe when the scientific community and environmental groups change their story all the time. Why did the focus shift from something that was universally recognised as being the result of human activity and incredibly dangerous, to something that also happens naturally?

    As someone who tries to understand what's going on in the world, in order to do the right thing because I care passionately about the environment, I'm left with the conclusion that the professional campaigners promoting these causes are not being wholly fair and honest with the general public. And as a result, policies which affect everyone are made on the basis of 'truths' that have been manufactured.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 03:13am on 01 Jul 2010, Robert Lucien wrote:

    #9 TaiwanChallenges wrote:

    "Does anyone remember the ozone layer? I ask purely because twenty years ago this was the most pressing problem the human race faced. We were all on the edge of extinction as increased UV threatened to not only give us all cancer but also kill all our food crops.

    Did we ever find a solution? Or was it just hype? Or are we just ignoring the problem now?"

    They really did find a solution and in that case it was reasonably simple - stop production of CFC's and stop existing CFC's from entering the atmosphere. According to the WP page ozone is no longer getting worse and is slowly starting to recover though it will take decades before it is back where it was. It was never going to kill everybody but a lot of us would be walking about with skin cancer.

    "I find it very hard to know what to believe when the scientific community and environmental groups change their story all the time. Why did the focus shift from something that was universally recognised as being the result of human activity and incredibly dangerous, to something that also happens naturally?"

    Science is like that, in a field that is in a period of major growth results tend to be a series of approximations of increasing accuracy as knowledge improves. In a hundred years or so climate predictions will be nearly 100% accurate. That is the joke with prediction - by the time you know for sure its usually to late one way or another.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 05:02am on 01 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    "It might seem a less purist approach to cutting carbon emissions than signing a global treaty on the subject, but that doesn't mean it won't bring in real savings - and even if you're not in the anthropogenic climate change camp, you might still appreciate the idea for the delay it will would bring to the onset of peak oil."

    Ah. Now its about peak oil.


    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 06:40am on 01 Jul 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Richard

    At first I thought this was going to be another sexist piece by Richard ;), but then i read this:

    the gender division apparent in the way the drivers walk through an avenue of scantily-clad beauties on their way back from slaying a buffalo for dinner

    It's good to see that Richard recognises that scantily-clad beauties also like to hunt ;)

    /Mango

    (Sorry, Richard, I know my English isn't perfect)

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 06:44am on 01 Jul 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    and on a more serioous note, i think it's great that F1 is looking into this. most technical improvements in vehicles seem to start with F1

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 08:16am on 01 Jul 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    It will be interesting to see what they can do with the cars, and if and to what extent that has an impact in the 'real world' away from F1. However it seems to me that the improvements to engine efficiency & performance will be the easy bit (but it may be well worth doing) and that the F1 initiative will not address the much trickier issues about sustainable mobility for billions...

    Even within the smaller world of F1, engine efficiency is only part of the picture. The analysis done for F1 shows that the carbon emissions caused by the testing and racing of the race cars is a small proportion of the total carbon emissions generated by F1 activities as a whole.

    The research by Trucost did look at F1's entire 'supply chain' and as Andrew Benson points out "other things are in the pipeline, too, such as looking at ways to reduce the emissions created by travelling around the world, and in operating the teams' factories where the cars are designed and built."

    Those "other things", although perhaps of less headline interest than what the bright shiny race cars do, may be the most important outcomes of the F1 initiative. Any real progress made here would be directly applicable to a wide range of industrial and trade practices and could make a very big difference indeed!

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 08:44am on 01 Jul 2010, davblo wrote:

    Richard and all...

    I don't understand this.

    Given that the F1 cars need to carry a lot of fuel, and the weight of the fuel adversely affects acceleration (not to mention braking), and that when the fuel runs out they have to waste time making pit stops to re-fuel; I'd have thought that even moderate improvements in fuel efficiency would have been advantageous all along.

    So given their resources, and if it's that easy, why hasn't this been done before?

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 09:14am on 01 Jul 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    Manysummits, I said on a previous blog that you should go and watch some motor racing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 09:22am on 01 Jul 2010, LabMunkey wrote:


    An interesting idea. It's true that F1 technologies filter down into not only the car industry, but other industries as well. It is often seen as a hot-bed for cutting edge technological advances. An intriguing prospect that it could be used to drastically reduce emissions- so long as they're not JUST concentrating on C02, i can only see this as a good thing.

    really really interesting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 09:45am on 01 Jul 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    It has often been said that modern motor racing has become boring as cars have become very similar and speeds have reached the limits of human reaction times, I would like to see different classes of motor sport using different energy sources and bringing them up to speed (pun). I said on a previous blog that if the greens could stop the vilification of the rest of us then they would find that petrol heads are the sort of people to be very interested in new energy and new technology, it is unfortunate that warming has polarized people so. I am not a warmist but I am keen on energy security, I hate the idea of so much of what I have to spend on energy going to despot regimes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 09:45am on 01 Jul 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    The 1899 World Speed Record (now the World Land Speed Record) was set by an electric car.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 09:47am on 01 Jul 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    I'd ban seat belts and helmets and fit a foot long metal spike to the centre of the steering wheel and insist that all competitors wore shiny trousers on slippery seats. (In fact this should be done to all those caught speeding!) None of the manby panby health and safety rubbish!!!!

    We want excitement don't we? I'm no kill joy, so as it is the crashes we all want to see why do we try so hard to avoid them?

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 09:59am on 01 Jul 2010, Freeman wrote:

    Best BBC blog intro has a new leader...

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 10:40am on 01 Jul 2010, rossglory wrote:

    i don't think the f1 carbon footprint is going to make much difference to the world and i have no issue with (mainly) guys sitting on their sofas getting aroused watching cars going round in circles.

    but if you look at the average car on the road and the technology availabale to mass manufacturers i really don;t think it's a technology gap.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 10:53am on 01 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    \\\ Canada Day 1 July 2010 ///

    A friend wrote me, characterizing this a 'refreshing' blog topic!

    I agree. The subject matter here is usually the opposite of light-hearted.

    On racing:

    The great race car driver Sterling Moss once said that he didn't believe there was such a thing as courage - only 'compulsion and necessity.'

    On life - I suppose - 'in the fast lane':

    Life force is important. Not just the will to continue on, but the ability to find joy in an uncompromising Universe.

    In racing, we see this life force very clearly, as Richard has pointed out.

    If we are to be true to ourselves, we must acknowledge this aspect of our personality, and believe that it is there for a reason.

    Whether that reason is understandable is much less important.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 10:55am on 01 Jul 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    I know nothing about motor racing, but I always assumed people watch it for the crashes. (Which are nowadays much safer than before.) Hydrogen might liven things up even more.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 11:21am on 01 Jul 2010, FergalR wrote:

    Seriously, Mr. Black, your modesty is becoming tedious - we all know you can easily give us a big scoop. Fire off an email to your mate Michael Mann to ask him what's up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 11:40am on 01 Jul 2010, davblo wrote:

    I'm disappointed.

    10 comments on and no-one tried to answer my question in #15.

    I still think there is something "fishy" going on here.

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 11:51am on 01 Jul 2010, andy765gtr wrote:

    I know some regular readers have me pegged as a bleeding heart liberal who's racked with pangs of self-hatred if I should so much as cycle over a worm or eat anything more technological than home-knitted organic muesli; so it may come as a shock that I really enjoy the high-octane buzz and top-end thrills of motor racing."

    watch out there richard. the cornucopian dont take our toys away clarkson brigade, will try to nail you with the old 'Ad Hominem Tu Quoque'fallacy, or as its now better known as the 'al gore uses lots of fossil fuels, therefore he is factually wrong' fallacy.

    you cant win.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 12:23pm on 01 Jul 2010, Tim wrote:

    TaiwanChallenges, the fact that it somehow escaped your attention that companies worldwide stopped producing fridges and aerosol cans that contain CFCs is utterly astonishing.

    The problem with the climate change debate is that the least-informed participants shout the loudest.

    I can't think of a single reason to wait for gold-plated proof of man-made global warming before acting to prevent it. Reduced carbon emissions save us all money, and have many other beneficial effects on the environment.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 12:24pm on 01 Jul 2010, ezeezee wrote:

    I'm all in favour of F1 making things better for the ordinary motorist but they have been a bit slow in introducing those petrol stations where you can pull in and get...a new front wing, four new tyres and a fill up of petrol... and be back on the road in 10 secs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 12:38pm on 01 Jul 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Davblo at #26

    This year's F1 rules don't allow pit stops for re-fueling. I don't think they mention fish.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 12:50pm on 01 Jul 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    davblo #15, #26.

    "So given their resources, and if it's that easy, why hasn't this been done before?"

    I'm sure you're right to be sceptical, o/wise we'd be talking improving fuel efficiency in commercial vehicles (given that they do most of the milage).

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 12:51pm on 01 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    Al gore isn't factually wrong because he uses fossil fuels, he's factually wrong because the facts he quotes are fictitious.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html


    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 1:02pm on 01 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @Davblo #15:

    "So given their resources, and if it's that easy, why hasn't this been done before?"

    I have the same problem as you.

    The answer is, of course, that it HAS been done before.
    Given that F1 employs some of the best motor engineers and technicians on the planet, their vast resources and decades of experience, developing, tweaking and fine-tuning, and, most importantly, given that they need to extract every last drop of performance for a given engine size and fuel load, (as you said, a heavy fuel load is a disadvantage) it's reasonable to assume that the engines are about as fuel-efficient as they're ever going to be.
    Perhaps they can increase fuel-efficiency by a few percent by, for example, using turbochargers (even that's already been done), but to suggest that fuel efficiency could be doubled is complete nonsense. The fact that some motor manufacturers appear to be suggesting that it's possible (even though they must know it isn't) seems to indicate that they'll say anything to improve their 'image'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 1:49pm on 01 Jul 2010, One_more_crazy_idea wrote:

    @davblo:

    Unfortunately it isn't that easy. There are rules around engine devlopment that stop rich teams being able to price the smaller team out of the race. Changing engine design can costs tens of millons, therefore once a new engine spec has been finalised by FIA / FOTA the teams need that spec to be in use for a period of years to get a good return on Investment.

    There's also a large amount on restrictions on technology in a nod to safety, i.e we no longer run formula one cars with up 1500bhp (see the late 1960's for the turbo era). The engines keep getting smaller in an effort to stem the peak bhp of the engines.


    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 1:50pm on 01 Jul 2010, vagueofgodalming wrote:

    I've never understood what's so wrong with self-hatred, anyway.

    There's certainly plenty of people (possibly even some who comment on BBC blogs) who, if they could see themselves as other see them, would logically hate themselves since they are eminently hateful.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 2:01pm on 01 Jul 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #33 Peter317 wrote:

    "to suggest that fuel efficiency could be doubled is complete nonsense"

    But surely everything you said about today's motor mechanics applies to the equivalent of a century ago (say) -- after which they actually did double fuel efficiency?

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 2:04pm on 01 Jul 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #31 jr4412

    "I'm sure you're right to be sceptical, o/wise we'd be talking improving fuel efficiency in commercial vehicles (given that they do most of the milage)."

    spot on :o)

    if f1 consisted in transit van sized motors that had to stop 15 times per lap and the driver jump out to get a signature, a special chicane with 20 speed humps, a random cyclist/pedestrian jumping in front of them at least 5 times per lap (not criticising cyclists or pedestrians or for that matter drivers, i'm actually all 3....just not at the same time)....and last bit not least a corner where they can leer at a few scantily clad females and still do 50 laps on one tank of petrol then i think we'd see some real improvements feeding through.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 2:32pm on 01 Jul 2010, davblo wrote:

    simon-swede #30: "This year's F1 rules don't allow pit stops for re-fueling."

    Thanks; I didn't know that. That still leave the power to weight aspect; so still rather fishy.

    jr4412 #31: "I'm sure you're right to be sceptical, o/wise we'd be talking improving fuel efficiency in commercial vehicles (given that they do most of the milage)."

    Good point. I'd forgotten that. So we should be concentrating about the "Monster Truck/Double-decker-bus/Articulated-lorry" racing boys instead of F1.

    Peter317 #33: "...to suggest that fuel efficiency could be doubled is complete nonsense."

    Thank you for elaborating. now I'm even more convinced I smell fish.

    I noticed Richard mentioned they use about 160 kg of fuel per race, and is as simon-swede says they don't re-fuel, then that's like having two adult passengers in the car with them at the start. I'm sure they have already done their best to shake off as much of that load as possible.

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 2:59pm on 01 Jul 2010, hotashes wrote:

    "32. At 12:51pm on 01 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:
    Al gore isn't factually wrong because he uses fossil fuels, he's factually wrong because the facts he quotes are fictitious.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html"

    You're actually going to quote Lord Mockton - I thought "skeptics" where trying to distance themselves from his wild claims

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 3:10pm on 01 Jul 2010, Dr Brian wrote:

    Richard's comment about racing developments leading to road improvements is absolutely right. Apart from engine efficiency, streamlining and ground effect there was the development of disc brakes by Jaguar for the Le Mans 24 hour race in the 1950s. Lots of brains and lots of money.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 3:14pm on 01 Jul 2010, davblo wrote:

    One_more_crazy_idea #34: "Unfortunately it isn't that easy."

    Thanks, but there was nothing in what you wrote which explained why they would have neglected to pay great attention to fuel efficiency in the past.

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 3:38pm on 01 Jul 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Davblo at #38

    I've thought of another thing (dredging the bottom of my exceptionally shallow knowledge pool about F1 racing cars here): there is also a minimum weight requirement for the F1 cars.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 4:00pm on 01 Jul 2010, One_more_crazy_idea wrote:

    #41 @davblo

    To improve the fuel efficiency they need to be able to change the engine design, i.e. the use of forced induction, intercoolers, lightweight alloys, cylinder valve setups, cylinder size, RPM (very long list) ... these are all restricted by regulations including any increase in power (which could in turn lead to fuel efficiency), the only changes to engine design are to improve reliability (which some teams exploit to increase power)

    The cars have gradually increased in efficiency but a lot of innovation is controlled for the reasons in my first post ...

    The proposed change of engine design allows the teams to redevlop their engines completely hence allowing them to increasing the fuel efficiency.

    Hopefully a bit clearer ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 4:20pm on 01 Jul 2010, davblo wrote:

    simon-swede #42: "...there is also a minimum weight requirement for the F1 cars."

    Quite correct; I noticed that.

    But still, assuming they are not allowed to dip below the minimum during the race, the starting weight must always be "minimum-weight" + "full-fuel-load".

    So the lighter the fuel load, the better the power to weight ratio, regardless of weight limit.

    All the best; davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 5:09pm on 01 Jul 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    One could argue that this is a sport of the rich and the improvements were to protect the high investments in the machines and the drivers and any applications to mass production is coincidential. Safety for the high investments and to a much lesser degree for the daily driver. It is the way the world works. Run your auto into a wall and flip over a couple of times and chances are you are not walking away...but they do.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 5:44pm on 01 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    #39 hotashes wrote:

    You're actually going to quote Lord Mockton - I thought "skeptics" where trying to distance themselves from his wild claims

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

    What's your problem with Lord Monckton? If it's his politics I quite agree, I have no use for his conservative stance on most issues or his euroscepticism.

    If it's his views on Al Gore's movie, point out which one of the 35 errors he wrote about 'An Inconvenient Truth' he was wrong about, please.

    If it's his scientific qualifications to be talking about climate change, he has the same number of scientific qualifications as Al Gore, Which is to say none at all. The only difference is no-one is giving Monckton an oscar or an Nobel prize...

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 5:45pm on 01 Jul 2010, davblo wrote:

    One_more_crazy_idea #43: "The cars have gradually increased in efficiency but a lot of innovation is controlled..."

    Thanks. I got as far as this...

    FIA REGULATIONS IN DETAIL

    ..but can't find anything about regulation concerning actual engine construction.

    Where would I find those if not here?

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 6:58pm on 01 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #36:

    "But surely everything you said about today's motor mechanics applies to the equivalent of a century ago (say) -- after which they actually did double fuel efficiency?"

    Not quite.
    The closer you approach the theoretical limit, the greater the effect of the law of diminishing returns.
    New technologies can, and undoubtedly will, increase the efficiency towards the theoretical maximum - things like forced induction, heat recirculation, energy recovery systems, (virtually) frictionless bearings, ceramic construction to permit far higher combustion temperatures, etc. However, increments get progressively more difficult and exponentially more expensive, especially if size, weight and reliability are not to be compromised.

    It's like suggesting that better training for athletes will permit them to run 100m in under five seconds.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 7:34pm on 01 Jul 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #48 Peter317 wrote:

    "The closer you approach the theoretical limit"

    Presumably, the "theoretical limit" is the chemical energy in the hydrocarbons that are burnt in the engine. Are you claiming that current car engine technology is already exploiting half of that?

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 7:56pm on 01 Jul 2010, hotashes wrote:

    46. At 5:44pm on 01 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    What's your problem with Lord Monckton?

    If it's his views on Al Gore's movie, point out which one of the 35 errors he wrote about 'An Inconvenient Truth' he was wrong about, please.

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

    35 errors? Really? Where are his sources? Sure Gore got things wrong, but the science moves on. Monckton has been shown to distort science for his own ends. It has been shown that he has, in the past, misrepresented papers from a number of scientists.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 8:07pm on 01 Jul 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    By "exploiting half of that", I mean: is the kinetic energy of a car anywhere near half the chemical energy its engine has burned to bring it up to its current speed? (And the same for averages of the above.)

    As a person who has 0% interest in car racing -- I find it almost unbelievably banal, a showcase for the failures of the male mind, especially in its moronic waste of champagne -- I can think of a few huge wastes of energy cars routinely fail to exploit. For example, the brakes could wind up a spring or charge a battery instead of just creating waste heat; the aerodynamics could help with turning, instead of just stupidly pressing the rear end onto the road; the "cage" for the driver could be improved at the same time as reducing weight hugely.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 8:11pm on 01 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    \\\ The Human Element ///

    Sons follow their fathers into motor-sports, according to an article I read perhaps 30 years ago, compared to other jobs.

    Most of this discussion so far has been concerned with technical details, but the race car driver is operating at the limits of human capability, physical, mental and spiritual.

    He, or she, is supported by an admiring public, an indicator of a life well lived.

    If there is to be a paradigm shift in thinking, as opposed to merely more and fancier technology, then the human being and our Qualities are highlighted.

    A 'just transition' to another way of life may see high carbon motor-sports go the way of the Dodo bird - eventually.

    But in the meantime, can we not celebrate the professional dedication, the superb talents, and above all the devotion of the race car driver?

    In future times such Qualities will be at least as much in demand, though the venue may change.

    - Manysummits in the fast lane -

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 8:25pm on 01 Jul 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #52 manysummits wrote:

    "can we not celebrate the professional dedication, the superb talents, and above all the devotion of the race car driver?"

    I wonder what sort of "superb talents" a race car driver could possibly have. They are not the talents of people we normally regard as talented, are they? No art, no science, no bravery or tenderness, no nothing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 8:40pm on 01 Jul 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    manysummits #52.

    "But in the meantime, can we not celebrate the professional dedication, the superb talents, and above all the devotion of the race car driver?"

    the word you're looking for is 'gladiator'.

    :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 8:51pm on 01 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #49:

    Perhaps you should read up on the thermal efficiency of heat engines.

    @bowmanthebard #53:

    Don't knock it until you've tried it ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 8:54pm on 01 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    #50 hotashes wrote:


    35 errors? Really?

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

    Really. Unless of course you can point out which of the 35 errors Monckton was wrong about.

    It's an impressive error count. One every 2.85 minutes, totally deserving of two oscars...

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 8:56pm on 01 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    26. davblo wrote:
    "I'm disappointed.

    10 comments on and no-one tried to answer my question in #15.

    I still think there is something "fishy" going on here."

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

    This whole thing is just greenwashing. If one actually takes the CO2 or conservation thing seriously, there is absolutely no justification for the F1 games at all. Zero. Zip. So, rather than face up to that reality they are doing this.

    People who preach about CO2 while supporting these auto-circuses are just blatant hypocrites, like the people who preach about CO2 and constantly fly to conferences or off on 'eco-tours.'

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 8:58pm on 01 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    24. bowmanthebard wrote:

    "I know nothing about motor racing, but I always assumed people watch it for the crashes... Hydrogen might liven things up even more."

    Thanks for a good laugh!

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 8:58pm on 01 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #51:

    You've evidently never had the misfortune to experience the effect of braking halfway through a bend in a car that doesn't "just stupidly press the rear end onto the road" then? {:-o

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 9:06pm on 01 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    39. hotashes wrote:

    "You're actually going to quote Lord Mockton - I thought "skeptics" where trying to distance themselves from his wild claims..."

    --------

    Yes. Such a shame when people make 'wild claims.' Can erode their credibility. Here's a few that the AGW gang probably wish were not recorded for posterity, in this fully linked article:

    "Once again, the world is being warned of a climate “tipping point.” The latest bout of stern warnings comes from a survey of 14 climate "experts."

    Get ready, we only have 190 years! Scientists 'expect climate tipping point' by 2200 - UK Independent - June 28, 2010 - Excerpt: "13 of the 14 experts said that the probability of reaching a tipping point (by 2200) was greater than 50 per cent, and 10 said that the chances were 75 per cent or more."

    Then it provides a "Factsheet on Inconvenient History of Global Warming 'Tipping Points' -- Hours, Days, Months, Years, Millennium -- Earth 'Serially Doomed'"

    Fear not Brits. You are well represented. In Oct. 2009, Gordon Brown warned of global warming 'catastrophe' with only '50 days to save world'! Prince Charles claimed we had only 8 years to the tipping point in July 2009. The Met office warned... etc.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7115/Laugh-Riot-190year-climate-tipping-point-issued--Despite-fact-that-UN-began-10Year-Climate-Tipping-Point-in-1989

    Tick, tock...



    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 9:16pm on 01 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    Juan Fangio was reported to be entirely capable of driving along a highway at high speed, on a dark night, with the lights off.

    The eyesight of most Formula One drivers is of another order. Sterling Moss could apparently see in his vibrating rear view mirror the face of the driver far in the rear pursuing, while a 'passenger' could barely make out the car.

    The reflexes and steadiness of nerve, the endurance required, the G-forces encountered on braking these magnificent cars, shifting hundreds of time per race, would put a military test pilot to shame.

    And then you get to drink Champagne, but not so much that it will impair your facilities.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 9:34pm on 01 Jul 2010, Jack Frost wrote:

    I'm sure somewhere out there, a useless government funded quango is running out of generous subsidies and are scratching their egg heads to come up with another easy buck scare monger idea to replenish their super computer 1.2 megawatts of energy to run electricity bill.

    Thoese electricity meters don't run on 1970's Esso football coins you know.

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 9:36pm on 01 Jul 2010, andy765gtr wrote:

    brunnen.

    ah, the inconvenient truth -a annoyingly name if ever there was one. every year it gets more relevant lol. so, great name and was actually found to be correct on all its major points too. in total accordance with basic physics, and the views of qualified climatologists. but not, funny enough with cornucopean, free market, business as usual please, capitalist enthusiasts like monkton. strange that. some minor points may have been debatable or unknown at this point, although thats far different from saying they are 'wrong', and they dont detract from the overall scientific message of the film. and it wasnt a peer reviewed science document for policy making anyway, but an educational piece from a fairly clued up politician about what he knew about the science. total accuracy is stupid to expect.

    you dont however have to scrat around to find tiny little errors in lord monkton of whatever. he is objectively wrong in every major point in his anti science ego trip. like a creationist, hes very clever at twisting evidence or scatter gun lying in debates. even his own sources of evidence have strongly disputed his conclusions. he is unqualified himself to really judge whether the science is correct or not anyway. its fine being unqualified like gore if you agree with the science, but who is anyone to disagree if they know much less than real scientists. you can look his errors up. like other famous denialists he has a mendacious, right wing agenda, but he knows, like any other high priest of a popular myth how to play up to the deluded - in this case a cheap flight addicted public.

    your a joke if you are suggesting the members of the $$$$$ denialist circuit are more correct than gore, and his, oh lets see, - oh agreement with proper science.

    i watched the bbc 1 panorama prog the other night. seems like denialists have shifted their position again. i love the way denialists do that, rather like religion when confronted by incontrovertible facts. i guess they eventually feel stupid denying the bleedin obvious. in the past, and still to the average cabbie or loft insulation fitter not up to date with the latest dogma, it was always 'climate change isnt happening full stop' (usually 15 minutes after 'whats that'). then it matured (like catholicism on evolution) to the slightly nuanced position of 'its happening and but its nothing to do with me taking flights to australia, mate'. some advanced denialists even seem foolish with this and have shifted to, 'weeell it is probably us to blame, but i still deny anything bad will happen, or me not taking a flight wont matter much because, because (insert dogma ie the chinese blah blah -but really thinking about next holiday). always shifting the goalposts, but never admitting they are clueless and to blame themselves. cheap flights are soooo'addicting' i suspose

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 9:45pm on 01 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    And then there is the judgment required. The day in day out of testing these exotic machines which operate at rpms which would completely destroy a conventional engine, with all the mechanical engineering that implies.

    To detect by eye the camber of the track at 300 km/hr and make the mental and physical adjustments required, and all the while strategizing to pass an equally gifted driver up ahead.

    Mental balance and judgement - awesome!

    Different tires for different conditions and tracks - and always the possibility of weather, actually always present - knowing how far to push this rubber on a slick and oily track. Accident avoidance, and on and on...

    And then to look nonchalant at the end of the race - a tribute to an endocrine system operating as it was intended to operate - a transfer of talent from the Mammoth Hunter to the modern era.

    I miss those days,

    Manysummits

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 9:52pm on 01 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    Working test-pilot like with the car design team and the mechanics, to convey from sensory input the nuts and bolts of the car's performance, and where tweaking can make a difference..

    These guys are awesome, more awesome than their machines.

    Manysummits

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 10:22pm on 01 Jul 2010, hotashes wrote:

    56. Brunnen_G

    Really. Unless of course you can point out which of the 35 errors Monckton was wrong about.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Error 5 Retreating Himalayan Glaciers
    Contrary to James Taylor's article, the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate never said growing glaciers are "confounding global warming alarmists" - that's a quote from the Heartland Institute website written by... James Taylor. He's actually quoting himself and attributing it to the AMS! To put the Himalayas in context, the original AMS study is not refuting global warming but observing anomalous behaviour in a particular region, the Karakoram mountains. This region has shown short term glacier growth in contrast to the long term, widespread glacier retreat throughout the rest of the Himalayas due to feedback processes associated with monsoon season. Overall, Himalayan glaciers are retreating - satellite measurements have observed "an overall deglaciation of 21%" from 1962 to 2007. In essence, the Karakoram glaciers are the exception that proves the rule.
    (Extract from - [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator])
    Error 13 Hurricanes "getting stronger"
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricanewarming.html

    These are just two but the wording he uses around issues like polar bears, sea ice, coral reefs etc are distortions of what was said and what the science actually shows

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 10:46pm on 01 Jul 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Why is it that anything fun is bad for you or the environment?
    I was taking a peek at some of these F1 toys just the other week. It was interesting to notice how technology has changed from earlier F1 cars to present day ones. I was amazed at the technology needed just to start an F1 car up. I noticed that the metal structures on the earlier models was much bulkier with welded together plates and extra clamping. All that extra weight!

    If they can improve and refine sports cars like this, they can improve and refine anything.
    I wish I could post my photos of the F1 cars from a vintage rally. One of them was a little green number, ancient but still in good working order thanks to a team of dedicated engineers.

    Actually, it is rather a nice feeling, that sensation of acceleration in a car with plenty of whoosh! Better than shanks pony or the bus.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 11:02pm on 01 Jul 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    How about something more relevant from the BBC

    Interview with Professor John Christy:

    Global warming: Interview with John Christy--Models, sensitivity, the PNAS paper and more
    http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m7d1-Global-warming-Interview-with-John-ChristyModels-sensitivity-the-PNAS-paper-and-more

    "John Christy is an atmospheric scientist and Professor of same at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and winner of achievement awards from NASA and the American Meteorological Society. He was a lead author of the IPCC's 2001 Assessment Report, but in 2007 was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying, "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see."

    AND:

    Examiner: You are commonly labeled as a 'skeptical' scientist who does not agree with the IPCC consensus regarding human contributions to climate change. How accurate is that, and how would you describe your own beliefs regarding this?

    J.C. I am mainly skeptical about those who claim to be so confident in understanding the climate system that they know what it is going to do in the next 100 years. This is my main complaint - overconfidence. We of all professions should be the most humble because there is so much about the climate system that we simply do not know. See my testimony given to the Inter Academy Council in June concerning these ideas - I think you will appreciate it."

    Maybe the BBC should be reporting, impartially, that not all real life scientists are believers in catastrophic AGW. looked he was even one of the IPCC 'consensus' back in 2001

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 11:06pm on 01 Jul 2010, Robert Lucien wrote:

    Tipping Points

    Anyone who takes climate change at all seriously merely has to look back, if there is a tipping point is was probably way back somewhere nearer the 1980's. Thats where James Lovelock's old back of envelope calculation put it. Visible climate shifting and warming are another sign that we are probably well past that tipping point.

    Climate is like a really big truck and it takes years to turn any corner.(metaphor) I was just looking at the ozone hole problem on WP and people began dealing with CFC emissions in the mid 90's but recovery is estimated to take at least another 40 - 50 years.

    CO2 is on an even bigger scale and will take even longer to react to cuts - which are far more difficult to make, and CO2 emissions as far as I know are still rising. Any cuts we make now might not have a big impact for another 50 years-though that certainly doesnt mean they are not worthwhile.

    If you want a solution to CO2 I give you "Aliens" - Giant heat pumps driven by fusion reactors cryogenically capture and remove CO2 from the atmosphere on a colossal scale and crack it to make raw carbon, chemicals petrol kerosene and oil. Of course it will take steel production on a scale never seen and need at least 20 years of research to get it working but its a real answer.
    -------------------------------------
    And btw sports like motor racing make absolutely no difference to the overall figures at all.


    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 00:22am on 02 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    69. Robert Lucien wrote:

    "Anyone who takes climate change at all seriously merely has to look back, if there is a tipping point is was probably way back somewhere nearer the 1980's. Thats where James Lovelock's old back of envelope calculation put it. Visible climate shifting and warming are another sign that we are probably well past that tipping point.

    Climate is like a really big truck and it takes years to turn any corner(metaphor)..."

    ---------

    Seriously. Yes, let's rely on Lovelock's back of the envelope musings.

    The fundamental problem with your big truck metaphor is that you seem to miss that the truck is following a winding road... always has and always will. That's why making long term projections from short term trends is always wrong.

    The real tipping point for AGW was last November was some honest person leaked the Climategate emails.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 01:05am on 02 Jul 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    Ultimately the efficiency of an engine is determined by its compression ratio hence the higher mpg of diesels.
    It is extremely unlikely that any large improvements will be made in family cars. (without making them smaller)
    We are actually seeing a decrease in real efficiency as manufacturers tune their vehicles to meet government standards – when driven according to the prescribed conditions they may show some improvement but under all other conditions, i.e. normal driving, they are frequently less efficient than older vehicles.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 01:21am on 02 Jul 2010, Dr Brian wrote:

    It's worth considering the effect of traffic calming measures such as road bumps, chicanes, road width restrictions such as bus lanes and the trend to reduce urban speed limits to 20mph.
    These restrict cars to low gears rather than the most fuel and emission efficient top gear.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 01:59am on 02 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    @ #69. At 11:06pm on 01 Jul 2010, Robert Lucien wrote:

    Tipping Points (re CO2 - atmospheric removal)

    ============

    Hello Lucien:

    From a Luddite - a recomendation:

    Washing Carbon Out of the Air ( Preview )
    Machines could absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, slowing or even reversing its rise and reducing global warming

    By Klaus S. Lackner

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=washing-carbon-out-of-the-air

    =================

    A brief history.

    Wallace Broecker, a giant in the climate science field, at first was very skeptical of Klaus Lackner's ideas on CO2 removal from an ambient atmosphere.

    Fast forward - The millionaire Gary Comer contacts Wallace Broecker - and in the above Scientific article is the up to date result.

    It is my personal belief that this is the way forward, precisely because it is not too high tech, and can be implemented on all scales, anywhere, with benefits worldwide which are non-discriminatory.

    I believe we will have to follow this direct extraction soon, as soon as the machines are ready. There are like concepts being developed in a variety of places and by a variety of scientists, including here at the University of Calgary.

    The Scientific American article highlights the concept, and the inception of concept.

    I thought you would be interested in the whole story, of Wally Broecker, Gary Comer, and of Klaus Lackner.

    It still leaves the ocean acidified, but it is a start.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 02:08am on 02 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    Addendum to my #73:

    "Fixing Climate - What past climate changes reveal about the current threat - and how to counter it"

    by Wallace Broecker and Robert Kunzig (2008)

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 03:13am on 02 Jul 2010, TaiwanChallenges wrote:

    Tim, #28, yup, I noticed all the stuff that people did. But did it solve the problem? Did we identify and deal with the real cause? Are we now safe from extreme UV, or did it not make any difference?

    Maybe the money spent on removing the CFCs from nuclear missiles (so we wouldn't damage the environment in the event of a nuclear war) could have been better spent on, oh, malaria research or something.

    Reducing pollution is generally a good thing, and I actually support the idea of zero emissions. We shouldn't be dumping anything into the environment because in most cases we don't know what the long-term effects will be. But we should be honest about what we don't know, and practical about what we can achieve, instead of claiming that we should do X because it will result in Y. We know perfectly well that we don't know the result of anything.

    Reduced carbon emissions won't save us a lot of money, they will result in an immediate and real increase in the cost of energy at source. They will also have an unspecified effect on the environment, as will every other human action and every other thing that happens on this planet - down to the flapping of a single butterfly's wings. If you genuinely believe that you know what the result of ANY change will be then you obviously don't know anything about how the world works.

    I repeat: zero emissions good, claiming to know what will happen next bad.

    Now, answer the question. If we go to zero emissions now, what will global temperatures be in a hundred years? If you can't answer that question NOW then you can't make policy now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 03:23am on 02 Jul 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    DrBrianS #72.

    "It's worth considering the effect of traffic calming measures ... These restrict cars to low gears rather than the most fuel and emission efficient top gear."

    depends on the transmission.

    in addition, rotary engine designs do away with crankshafts, etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 05:57am on 02 Jul 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    jr4412 at post 76

    Do they make one for large heavy, wheeled suitcases? ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 06:19am on 02 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    73. manysummits

    Checked that link out of curiosity but could only read the intro for free.

    "Key Concepts

    Machines with filters made from sorbent materials can bind carbon dioxide, extracting it from the air.

    With mass production,machines might capture CO2 at $30 a ton, less than the $100 or more charged for commercial CO2 supply.

    With improved sorbents, 10 million machines across the planet could reduce CO2 concentration by five parts per million a year, more than the rate of global increase right now."

    Well, looks like a fantastic business proposal for whomever wants to sell 10 million of these machines...

    It MIGHT only cost $30 a ton to save the world? With "improved sorbents" that COULD happen. How can we resist?

    But what does one do with all that absorbed CO2?

    And what are the CO2 and other environmental costs of manufacturing, transporting, maintaining and operating these machines and that CO2?

    As I expected, another fantasy from the house that AGW built.



    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 07:01am on 02 Jul 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #78 CanadianRockies

    "As I expected, another fantasy from the house that AGW built."

    the real fantasy is that you can carry on as if nothing is happening, maybe watching cars go round and round in circles while co2 emissions accumulate, forests get felled for biofuels, coral dies off etc etc etc.

    and if you ever want to make an economic point a good starting point would be to compare the massive subsidies fossil fuels, roads, motor manufacturing etc receive compared to the relatively puny sums allocated to renewables.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 07:08am on 02 Jul 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #68 Barry Woods

    "Maybe the BBC should be reporting, impartially, that not all real life scientists are believers in catastrophic AGW. looked he was even one of the IPCC 'consensus' back in 2001"

    would that be the same dr christy i saw interviewed on panoramama last week saying just what you've posted....yes a bbc programme!!! and what's more the programme was mentioned in this post (check out andy765gtr's superb post) and the last one.

    if you're going to put your paranoid whingeing in 'print' it's worth doing some basic research first.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 08:12am on 02 Jul 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

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

  • 82. At 10:04am on 02 Jul 2010, Dr Brian wrote:

    76. jr4412 wrote:
    DrBrianS #72.
    "It's worth considering the effect of traffic calming measures ... These restrict cars to low gears rather than the most fuel and emission efficient top gear."

    depends on the transmission.
    in addition, rotary engine designs do away with crankshafts, etc.

    Transmissions designed to be in top gear at 20mph are unsuitable for motorway or long distance travel but are OK for town cars.
    Rotary engines wear out very quickly.
    Both ideas have been tried in road cars (remember the Daf and the Wankel) and have not worked well.
    Let's hope the application of big brains and big money can be more successful.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 10:24am on 02 Jul 2010, Robert Lucien wrote:

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

    Maybe this is what we all need to solve the car fuel efficiency problem :) I always wanted a turbine car. With todays technology combine an advanced turbine with a hybrid system and an electric transmission (4WD) and an idler battery. - You could have an extremely efficient car that has good performance with low maintenance and a very long lifespan. Of course its a dream...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#Microturbines

    One of the biggest problems in AI is in powering the robot system, batteries are to heavy and expensive and every other method had its own unique drawbacks. Micro turbines were just a fantasy - and now look their real. Their high power and light weight makes them ideal for that other Sci Fi staple Robby Jetpack - someones done that to...

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 11:28am on 02 Jul 2010, englishborn wrote:

    # TaiwanChallenges
    "The current campaign to reduce CO2 emissions is predicated on two beliefs, both of which are dangerously false:
    - that everything would be OK, ie the same as before, if humans didn't cause change
    - that we, humans, actually know what the consequences of our actions will be"

    I have real issue with your statement its based on 2 beliefs, it isnt its based on quite a few, secondly you incorrectly state the beliefs, thus showing you know little of the scientific discussion taking place, or you are attempting to mislead people, I hope its the former.

    First belief - I know of no paper or scientist or even politician claiming the climate will remain as it is today, the issue is the rate of climate change, the slower the rate the more chance species have to adapt, and we as humans have more time to adapt our ways of life and develop technologies to tackle the issues that will arise with a hotter earth (will vary from place to place). I'm in the renewable energy industry, I know and do all my fellow workers that climate will change naturally, but the way we are increasing the rate of change is very alarming and puts at risk our change to adapt and those of other species.

    Second belief - If you look at model predictions they give a range of possibilities, and again I haven't read any paper claiming to know what will happen, but most suggest what may happen, in fact a lot use the paleoclimate record to justify their papers.

    So your 2 "beliefs" in terms of the scientists and informed politicians is incorrect, and therefore the basis of your argument isn't valid.


    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 12:19pm on 02 Jul 2010, hotashes wrote:

    In response to #60.
    "Such a shame when people make 'wild claims.' Can erode their credibility. Here's a few that the AGW gang probably wish were not recorded for posterity, in this fully linked article:
    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7115/Laugh-Riot-190year-climate-tipping-point-issued--Despite-fact-that-UN-began-10Year-Climate-Tipping-Point-in-1989"
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I'm not sure what your point is with that link. First off it shows a link to some research asking 14 scientists if we carry on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate do they think by 2200 we will have significantly changed the climate. There are a couple of references what % percentage certain they are etc. as you would expect from scientists (not exactly a wild claim) but frankly I couldn't be bothered going into any detail by reading through the actual paper to see what was really said as the rest of the link was just rubbish. For the most part no real reference to tipping points.
    The stuff from Gordon Brown was not about a tipping point but a reference to an up coming meeting.
    One was a quote from Prince Charles who unfortunately I believe is an advocate of homeopathy – not a scientist
    The problem is that you seem to be suggesting that because scientists can't predict the future with 100% certainty they must be wrong about everything with regard to climate change. Are you 100% sure Climate Change is not happening due to mankind's activities?
    It's similar to TaiwanChallenges argument saying they agree with zero emissions because pumping anything into the environment must be bad, and then in pretty much the next sentence says we shouldn't do anything because we can't exactly predict the future.
    Predicting the future a hard thing to do. No one in scientific research is claiming to know exactly what will happen, but the weight of evidence is showing that the earth is storing more and more heat.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 12:40pm on 02 Jul 2010, One_more_crazy_idea wrote:

    @ Davblo #47


    An easier to read summary (but without all the detailed technical specs)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_regulations [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 12:56pm on 02 Jul 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    an attempt to re-phrase and re-post my points in #81

    @ #63. At 9:36pm on 01 Jul 2010, andy765gtr

    your comments on al gore, his film and the ramifications surrounding it belie your knowledge on the subject. The film 'an inconvenient truth' was not only significantly misleading, but factually incorrect on many cases. The UK high court rulling on the film was damning indeed- though i'd wager you 'forgot' about that in your xealotry.

    In contrast, the excellent film 'the great global warming swindle' which was reviewed by offcom, only had 4 points upheld about it, NONE of which were on the science- however that was never reported out of the offcom statement as it was just a smear job. I would suggest you read BOTH reports before trying to respond to this point, they are both online and freely available. Incidentally the GGWS film was re-edited in line with the offcom review, and re released. Was AIT....?

    so- Al gores film, MASSIVE inaccuracies and basic scientific errors vs the great global warming swindle, accurate and to the point.

    The science behind AGW is not settled. The science behind AGW is highly suspect, riddled with selection bias and measurment innacuracies. The science behind AGW relies heavily on models that have been proven, again and again to not work reproducably....

    so the whole thrust of your post was as inaccurate as the 'cause' you seem to want to further.

    Finally- please stop using the term 'denialist' it is highly Direspectful.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 1:36pm on 02 Jul 2010, One_more_crazy_idea wrote:

    @ Davblo #47

    Oops posted a link to a PDF ... go to the following website and at the bottom are the 2010 technical regulations

    http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulations/Pages/FIAFormulaOneWorldChampionship.aspx

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 1:51pm on 02 Jul 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    80# .

    Buried away on late night TV once, is not the same as reporting say
    in the science and environment website though...

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 2:02pm on 02 Jul 2010, Robert Lucien wrote:

    #75 TaiwanChallenges wrote:

    "Tim, #28, yup, I noticed all the stuff that people did. But did it solve the problem? Did we identify and deal with the real cause? Are we now safe from extreme UV, or did it not make any difference?

    Maybe the money spent on removing the CFCs from nuclear missiles (so we wouldn't damage the environment in the event of a nuclear war) could have been better spent on, oh, malaria research or something. "

    Unfortunately the missile systems wouldn't just have used CFC's during launch, (I'm guessing) they would used them to keep their cryogenic fuel at the right temperature. That means they would be running coolers night and day and cryogenic coolers are huge and use a lot of coolant.
    Actually I think modern missiles use solid fuel even for their steering thrusters...

    I just checked and they actually used them to wash the missiles guidance systems, bizarre.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 2:14pm on 02 Jul 2010, hotashes wrote:

    #87. LabMunkey sorry I'm not going let statements like those sit unchallenged. Here are a selection of what was said about Al Gore's film.

    http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/10/al-gores-inconvenient-truth.html

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/10/the_boring_truth.php

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/an_inconvenient_truth_team_gor_1.html

    To summarise; Gore over simplified a few points, got a few things wrong, but got the general scientific position across

    Here is one link so people can check your assertions about The Great Global Warming Swindle

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reactions_from_scientists

    To summarise; scientists where misrepresented, graphs where misrepresented and discredited theories where presented.

    Anyway that is enough from me on Al Gore as things have moved on since his film.

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 2:28pm on 02 Jul 2010, davblo wrote:

    One_more_crazy_idea #86: "Formula_One_regulations"

    Thanks. I was hoping for the official version rather than Wikipedia's.

    But at least I learnt what KERS stands for; "Kinetic energy recovery"; (not sure where the "S" came from) and that they seem to have been using it since 2009.

    As you say, there appear to be a lot of regulations limiting what can be developed or changed.

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 2:30pm on 02 Jul 2010, davblo wrote:

    One_more_crazy_idea #88: "Oops posted a link to a PDF"

    Yes, I ended up in Wikipedia, but it was useful.

    Now I've found the 2010 technical regulations. Thanks.

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 3:01pm on 02 Jul 2010, davblo wrote:

    One_more_crazy_idea #88: "2010 technical regulations"

    Yes, it reads more like the specification of an engine rather than regulations for different engines.

    OK. So they had their hands tied behind their backs up until now as regards optimising fuel economy.

    But now I have the the opposite problem.

    I can't see how they regulators can allow innovative development without relaxing most of the regulations. If they knew which regulations to relax they'd be preempting the solutions.

    Still a bit fishy...

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 4:03pm on 02 Jul 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 91.

    i notice you completely failed to do what i suggested, and have in the process been hoisted by your own petard.

    Instead of relying on a information source that has been proven to be manipulated towards an AGW slant (wiki, NS), go and read the ofcom report and the UK high court rulings.

    They do NOT support your assertions.

    To summerise, the UK legal system found multiple scientific errors in gores film and found the majority of it to be without scientific basis.

    The ofcom report on the great global warming swindle had NO issues with the data at all. The 4 points that were upheld were on technicalities on the representation of the scientists being interviewed- they thought they were being interviewd for an 'alarmist' piece.

    I will take a high court ruling over a lot of politicised nonesense any day.

    I suggest you actually Check your facts next time rather than rely on opinion pieces from people with vested interests.

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 4:58pm on 02 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @davblo #92:

    The 'S' is for System.

    #94:

    "I can't see how they regulators can allow innovative development without relaxing most of the regulations"

    Most of the innovative development took place years ago. The regulations have more recently been aimed at slowing the cars down - they were arguably getting too fast. As well as attempting to remove some of the disadvantages to less-wealthy teams.

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 5:19pm on 02 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @RobWansbeck #71:

    "Ultimately the efficiency of an engine is determined by its compression ratio hence the higher mpg of diesels."

    Not quite.
    Diesel, being a denser fuel, has a higher calorific value than the same volume of petrol, but pound-for-pound there's not much difference between the two. So, although diesel gives a higher mpg, it doesn't give a significantly higher mplb (or Km/Kg)- and you end up with a heavier fuel tank (assuming the same volume)

    As far as compression ratio goes, diesel requires a high compression ratio for combustion, whereas petrol doesn't. The only advantage a higher compression ratio has for a petrol engine is that it allows more power from a smaller, lighter engine.
    So yes, a higher compression ratio increases the volumetric efficiency, but not necessarily the fuel (thermal) efficiency.
    Except that a smaller, lighter engine normally translates to a smaller, lighter car - hence greater fuel economy due to less power being required. But not greater fuel efficiency - which means less fuel used for the same power output.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 5:20pm on 02 Jul 2010, hotashes wrote:

    #95 Sorry Labmunkey I think you misunderstood my point. I was trying to show you what Scientists had said about the two films. Not Ofcom or a British Judge or Wiki or anybody else for that matter.

    The simple fact is this 'The Great Climate Change Swindle' misrepresented scientists, their work, and presented debunked theories as credible new alternatives. Al Gore did none of these things.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 5:29pm on 02 Jul 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #89 barry woods

    "Buried away on late night TV once, is not the same as reporting say
    in the science and environment website though..."

    8.30pm - hardly late night more like peak evening viewing. you need to face up to the truth that the bbc is relatively unbiased and the science is more or less how they present it. the real bias is on sky news, daily mail and other outlets influenced significantly by their proprietors, i.e. those that persist in giving the likes of monckton a platform for their psuedo-scientific membo jumbo.

    talking of whom, i was very impressed by the way monckton bravely harangued a group of american children for disagreeing with him, spectacularly falling foul of godwin's law by accusing them of being like hitler youth, this from the goebbels of sceptic propaganda.....the guy still lives in the halcyon days of subservience to the aristocracy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 7:04pm on 02 Jul 2010, Robert Lucien wrote:

    #73. At 01:59am on 02 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    #69. At 11:06pm on 01 Jul 2010, Robert Lucien wrote:

    Tipping Points (re CO2 - atmospheric removal)

    "It is my personal belief that this is the way forward, precisely because it is not too high tech, and can be implemented on all scales, anywhere, with benefits worldwide which are non-discriminatory.

    I believe we will have to follow this direct extraction soon, as soon as the machines are ready. There are like concepts being developed in a variety of places and by a variety of scientists, including here at the University of Calgary.
    ...
    I thought you would be interested in the whole story, of Wally Broecker, Gary Comer, and of Klaus Lackner.

    It still leaves the ocean acidified, but it is a start.

    - Manysummits -"

    Thanks Manysummits, I'm pretty sure I've seen them before in New Scientist, I think they were calling the devices carbon tree's or artificial trees. Their certainly a lot simpler and cheaper than cryogenic capture - but the cryogenic method packs a very high performance in a small space. Maybe the two methods are so different that they could work well together in a way thats quite complementary. Thinking about it I'm sure there's a way of using the water capture method and cryogenic capture together in the same machine.

    Of course the machines I'm talking about would only be feasible after 20 years of intense work, at the pace things are going now they are more like a hundred years away. Lets see we need commercial nuclear fusion, giant steel foundries, giant concrete factories, giant structure technology, new types of giant construction equipment like giant robots and lift systems, giant pipes and beakers and immense pumps, lakes of cryo-coolants and a lot of chemistry and physics and other stuff.

    Ok my plants would probably be a nightmare to live next to at least for a lot of people and would dwarf the local landscape. But on the scale I'm talking about each plant might also be able to produce maybe 100 gigawatts to 1 terawats of power as a byproduct (=1000 wind turbines) - so they would have a huge impact on solving the whole worlds energy problems as well. A pretty complete solution even if in rather a large package.

    Enough rambling from me :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 7:17pm on 02 Jul 2010, Dr Brian wrote:

    Oh good grief. What a load of drivel about carbon capture machines. ANYTHING to spend the trillions on and have you guys got shares?

    The most confirmed sceptic such as me would have no objection to the planting of millions of trees. They will do what you AGW nutters want, scrub CO2, and do what we would want, save the vast amount of wasted money for worthwhile things and look pretty.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 7:28pm on 02 Jul 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    @97, Peter317 wrote:

    “ @RobWansbeck #71:

    "Ultimately the efficiency of an engine is determined by its compression ratio hence the higher mpg of diesels."

    Not quite. …........... So yes, a higher compression ratio increases the volumetric efficiency, but not necessarily the fuel (thermal) efficiency. “

    The compression ratio directly affects the thermal efficiency. As the piston descends the gas expands and cools doing work as it does so. The more it is allowed to expand the more work it does and less heat is pumped out the exhaust.

    In a petrol engine the compression ratio is limited not only by the octane rating but also NOx production which has tighter limits than that for diesels.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 7:57pm on 02 Jul 2010, hotashes wrote:

    #95
    'I will take a high court ruling over a lot of politicised nonesense any day.'

    I decided to test this statement. The following is from the judgement.

    I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
    i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
    ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:

    "The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
    (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");
    (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
    (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
    (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
    These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists.

    Ofcom howere stated about the Great Climate Change Swindle

    "It is not within Ofcom's remit or ability in this case as the regulator of the 'communications industry' to establish or seek to adjudicate on 'facts' such as whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon."

    But did mention this documentary misrepresented graphs and facts

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 9:21pm on 02 Jul 2010, Jack Frost wrote:

    You couldn't make this up

    Mild weather shuts down Britains first 'green' Island.

    When the inhabitants of the remote Scottish island of Eigg put their faith in the wind and rain to provide all their electricity they did not reckon for one thing – mild weather.

    Now the 95 residents are being asked not to use kettles, toasters or other kitchen appliances after uncharacteristically mild weather caused a critical shortage of power.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/hydro_electricenergy/7858960/Power-rationed-on-green-island-Eigg-after-mild-weather-causes-drought.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 10:27pm on 02 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    79. rossglory wrote:

    "the real fantasy is that you can carry on as if nothing is happening, maybe watching cars go round and round in circles while co2 emissions accumulate, forests get felled for biofuels, coral dies off etc etc etc."

    Well, in my #57 I expressed my feelings about this F-1 circus. Perhaps you should address that point to Richard, who's a big fan.

    In other posts on other blogs I have expressed my feeling about biofuels, which i think is another extremely stupid idea with more costs than benefits.

    Corals die off.

    "if you ever want to make an economic point a good starting point would be to compare the massive subsidies fossil fuels, roads, motor manufacturing etc receive compared to the relatively puny sums allocated to renewables."

    A cost-benefit analysis is all one needs. Most renewables simply don't pass that test. And that example of these CO2 absorbers is really ludicrous by that standard.



    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 06:46am on 03 Jul 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Jack Frost at #104

    And on a much bigger scale, you don't need to make this up either...

    France is being forced to import electricity from Britain to cope with a summer heatwave that has helped to put a third of its nuclear power stations out of action.... When water temperatures rise, EDF is forced to shut down the reactors.

    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article6626811.ece

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 09:04am on 03 Jul 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #104 jack frost

    which is exactly why there should be a grid that can cope with varying distributed input and renewable supplies spread across the country.

    you guys still haven't moved on from the 20th century concept of energy production.

    it's bit like you buying a 200,000 quid supercar and then moaning the first time you hit a pothole, lose control and trash it. infrastructure is important as well!

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 09:10am on 03 Jul 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #105 Candian Rockies

    "A cost-benefit analysis is all one needs. Most renewables simply don't pass that test. And that example of these CO2 absorbers is really ludicrous by that standard."

    you may well be right, there are some good ideas and bad ideas out there. but i think a hard nosed economic measure is not always appropriate because there are subsidies that people are unaware of, externalities ignored by most corporations and a different picture when societal considerations are taken into account (e.g. the beeching cuts were all about railway econommics, but cutting of an entire town had much larger consequencies that he didn;t take into consideration).

    i just think the picture is generally more complex than a p&l approach would suggest.

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 10:19am on 03 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    Rossglory #108: re 'renewable costing'

    Hi Ross!

    Three things:

    1) The real costs for many of our 'business as usual' products, including fossil fuels, are not yet in the equations. A 'Full World Economics' accounting would be required.

    And then there are the intangibles: see the United States in Poland for missile defense - and there is probably shale gas in Poland. Shale gas is an 'unconventional,' and it would be compounding the problems we already have to go down this road (shale gas), which we already are in North America.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10497684.stm

    2) Wallace Broecker endorses these machines, and Klaus Lackner is at Columbia as well. The late Gary Comer was an entrepreneurial genius, and his foundation continues to support this project.

    I would put my money on this threesome, and then there is the design team as well, which is another story, and a positive one.

    3) As simon-swede's link in his #106 graphically illustrates, there are problems with nuclear, even in France - and we are not even talking about de-commissioning!

    Warmist,

    Manysummits

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 11:45am on 03 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    Nuclear power is by and large the best, cheapest and cleanest (that's right hippies, cleanest!) form of power. It's just a shame the Americans do it wrong.

    They bury all the waste instead of reprocessing it. Madness! That stuff is over 95% recyclable.

    I can't for the life of me imagine why the do this.

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 11:50am on 03 Jul 2010, Robert Lucien wrote:

    #101. At 7:17pm on 02 Jul 2010, DrBrianS wrote:

    "Oh good grief. What a load of drivel about carbon capture machines. ANYTHING to spend the trillions on and have you guys got shares?

    The most confirmed sceptic such as me would have no objection to the planting of millions of trees. They will do what you AGW nutters want, scrub CO2, and do what we would want, save the vast amount of wasted money for worthwhile things and look pretty."

    I think your missing the point- at least for cryo-capture its merely one process in a large system. They would have a very high cost but they would recuperate it. The machines I'm taking about would produce vast amounts of electricity - as well as ethanol kerosene or pretty much any hydro carbon chemical you wanted, and any high energy process. It is literally teraforming technology, if you can bring life to a lifeless planet you can repair one thats damaged.

    Ok I know my idea is a difficult high tech solution that requires major advances in a dozen fields. But maybe thats the point, global warming is a big big problem that needs a big big solution, the fact that it hugely accelerates technological progress is merely a benefit.
    If it had been adequately funded we would have had commercial fusion stations coming on line 5 or 10 years ago and there would be no energy problem.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 11:58am on 03 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @ RobWansbeck #102:

    You're right..

    sorry, don't know what I was thinking ;-(

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 12:12pm on 03 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @Rossglory #79:

    "and if you ever want to make an economic point a good starting point would be to compare the massive subsidies fossil fuels, roads, motor manufacturing etc receive compared to the relatively puny sums allocated to renewables."

    Yes, that would be a good starting point.
    Please list and quantify them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 12:44pm on 03 Jul 2010, Robert Lucien wrote:

    #111 "If it had been adequately funded we would have had commercial fusion stations coming on line 5 or 10 years ago and there would be no energy problem."

    Oops that should have said coming on line now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 1:26pm on 03 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @Robert Lucien #111:

    "If it had been adequately funded we would have had commercial fusion stations coming on line 5 or 10 years ago and there would be no energy problem."

    Where do you imagine the adequate funding is (was) going to come from? The last time I looked, the piggy bank was less than empty.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 3:02pm on 03 Jul 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #113 Peter317

    ""and if you ever want to make an economic point a good starting point would be to compare the massive subsidies fossil fuels, roads, motor manufacturing etc receive compared to the relatively puny sums allocated to renewables.""

    Yes, that would be a good starting point.
    Please list and quantify them."

    no. if you're really interested in determining the relative economic merits of renewables vs other forms of energy there's lots of information out there to read (but i'm sure you're not so you wont).

    personally, i think renewables are essential primarily because fossil fuels are trashing the planet, through agw, pollution (from burning and leaks), the local political and economic damage from their extraction, geopolitical tension and wars.

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 3:18pm on 03 Jul 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #109 manysummits

    hi manysummits,

    we're cooking here in the uk (se anyway) and heading for a drought. if there's one thing you can guarantee with brits it's that they'll always complain about the weather

    when looking at real life cost/benefit analysis it's difficult to factor in such things as over a million dead from our folly in iraq (clearly a cost of oil), the damage to the gulf of mexica, the death and disease and political unrest in nigeria, the rape of canada to extract tar sands etc etc.

    on top of that there's the massive subsidies that peter317 is researching now. this brought to mind reading an article written by a senior american officer (i think he was a general but couldn't be sure) who had resigned because he became disillusioned about risking his life for corporate america. so in some way you could factor in billions of ponds of usa taxpayers money securing their energy access (do you remember the taliban visiting the white house to discuss a gas pipeline across afghanistan?)

    sometimes it feels like agw is the least of our problems, i just wish i could ignore the consensus and put my faith in prof christy!

    warmist regards to you and yours,
    ross

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 4:49pm on 03 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    Hello Ross @ 117:

    I have been having a real hard time here trying to figure out what to do next. I watched an excellent forty-five minute DVD on Antarctica last night:

    "The Antarctic Challenge: A Global Warming" (2009)

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1306953/combined

    ================

    I would give this a ten out of ten rating - there's something so down to Earth about it. The British Antarctic Survey is heavily featured, but some of the best interviews are from two researchers from the Ukraine I believe, with sub-titles - an ozone expert and a seismologist.

    In addition, there is a brief on Sir Ernest Shackleton, and some breathtaking time-lapse photography and HD of the continent, including a run down on the likely fates of several species of penguins, and footage I've never seen before of 'krill' swarming in the ocean, the primary food of some penguins and whales.

    Time-lapse of predicted flooding coastlines around the world lend a more than somber note, but at the very end of the film, the director strips down to a swimming suit and swims in recently ice-free water at the Antarctic coast, impossible at this location until recently.

    This initiation of the new sport of Antarctic swimming struck me much more than I would have supposed. The laughs of the film crew, the director baring almost all, swimming with the penguins as it were, reminded me in the most powerful way of the enterprising spirit and the good nature of our fellow man, something it is altogether too easy to forget when reading the comments of our toxic denialists.

    I hope you can get a copy to watch yourself - I think it is a new type of documentary - one made by Antoine de Saint-Exupery's "responsible man."

    All the best to you and yours as your weather turns. Here there is unprecedented flooding in Saskatchewan, and I've noticed a pattern emerging over my mountains just west of me. The rivers are still high, and snow is lingering in quantity on the front range, prolonging the Spring freshet. This happened last in 2005, another El Nino year similar to the one just ended, with similar results.

    That must qualify for 'longest salutation' I imagine?

    Manysummits

    PS: I have volunteered to work at a Liberal Party of Canada Stampede Breakfast next weekend.

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 5:31pm on 03 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    "including a run down on the likely fates of several species of penguins"

    "Time-lapse of predicted flooding coastlines around the world"

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

    So guesswork and more guesswork then. Excellent.

    We know what a sterling record the AGW lobby have with predictions. The met office couldn't even predict that last winter was going to be... cold!

    With that in mind, you'll bear with me if I don't start a campaign to save the penguins or stop the flooding JUST yet...

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 6:21pm on 03 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @rossglory #116

    No. You tell me exactly what you mean by "massive subsidies".

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 7:54pm on 03 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #111. Robert Lucien wrote:

    "If it had been adequately funded we would have had commercial fusion stations coming on line 5 or 10 years ago and there would be no energy problem."

    Yes. And who exactly is responsible for demonizing all things related to nuclear power?

    In the US, they used Three Mile Island, the greatest disaster that NEVER happened, to stop it in its tracks. At least in Europe Chernobyl actually did happen, but that Soviet rust busket was a disaster waiting to happen.

    So, who benefited from putting the brakes on nuclear power? Big Oil and Big Coal. Its almost as is the environmental groups are just useful idiots being manipulated by them.



    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 8:10pm on 03 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    118. manysummits

    "PS: I have volunteered to work at a Liberal Party of Canada Stampede Breakfast next weekend."

    I always get a laugh out of our politicians dressing up like cowboys for that. Can hardly wait to see Liberal leader Iggy playing dressup. He'll probably still wear dress shoes. Might even be worse than Green Dion's performance there.


    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 9:32pm on 03 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    Replies to #119 & 122:

    Re: "The Antarctic Challenge: A Global Warming" (2009)(My post #118)

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1306953/combined

    ================

    #119: "With that in mind, you'll bear with me if I don't start a campaign to save the penguins or stop the flooding JUST yet..." (Brunnen_G)

    ==========

    Yes, I will bear with you.

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

    #122: "I always get a laugh out of our politicians dressing up like cowboys for that. Can hardly wait to see Liberal leader Iggy playing dressup. He'll probably still wear dress shoes. Might even be worse than Green Dion's performance there." (CanadianRockies)

    ===========

    You don't strike me as the type of person who laughs much. Come on down pardner and I'll make you a flapjack!!

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

    #118: Manysummits also wrote:

    "This initiation of the new sport of Antarctic swimming struck me much more than I would have supposed. The laughs of the film crew, the director baring almost all, swimming with the penguins as it were, reminded me in the most powerful way of the enterprising spirit and the good nature of our fellow man, something it is altogether too easy to forget when reading the comments of our toxic denialists.

    I hope you can get a copy to watch yourself - I think it is a new type of documentary - one made by Antoine de Saint-Exupery's "responsible man."

    ================

    Pity our denialists appear to lack the ability to laugh or to appreciate the human in us all. But then, it must be a full time job being an expert on Russian nuclear reactors, penguins of all sorts, and cost/benefit analyses of the highest caliber, in any subject that is brought up - cyrogenic fusion reactors for example (Robert Lucien), or 'Wally Trees' (Manysummits)

    Pity that neither Robert Lucien nor Columbia University has availed themselves of your services.

    On another denialist note, and regarding polar research and global warming science:

    Dr. David Schindler at the University of Alberta: (world renowned ecologist)

    "It is clear that muzzling under the Harper government [Progressive Conservative Party leader] is the most oppressive in the history of federal government science. Incredibly, some of the most eminent scientists in Canada have been forbidden to speak publicly on scientific matters where they are recognized as world experts."


    http://www.desmogblog.com/harper-government-stifles-truth

    I'm not sure but I believe I've seen Mr. Harper in a cowboy hat. For those not familiar with the Calgary Stampede and Calgary, white hatting is a tradition here, harkening back to the cowboy era of the West - living memory to many, and still a way of life for a few.

    As for Celine Dion - well - not even a music lover heh?

    I mean, imagine the effrontery of anyone wanting to preserve the green on our planet. I presume you have all concrete in your home, no grass or shrubs or trees, no plants inside or outside, no wooden objects, no pictures of course of any of the above - just glass and steel and concrete - you know - a supporter of industrial processes and products.

    To each his own - wait a minute! That would make you a liberal.

    - Manysummits -


    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 9:33pm on 03 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    118. manysummits wrote:

    "This happened last in 2005, another El Nino year similar to the one just ended, with similar results."

    2005 wasn't an El Nino year like this past one. Nice graph here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/june-2010-temperature-cooling-a-bit-as-el-nino-fades/

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 9:55pm on 03 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To Rossglory #117:

    "when looking at real life cost/benefit analysis it's difficult to factor in such things as over a million dead from our folly in iraq (clearly a cost of oil), the damage to the gulf of mexica, the death and disease and political unrest in nigeria, the rape of canada to extract tar sands etc etc." (Ross)

    ===========

    Yes, it is difficult. It's been attempted, but I keep getting the feeling that most of us should simply look at things another way and make decisions accordingly.

    Now that the truth is out, we know that we are engaged in two illegal actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and undoubetedly many more that are less visible, a few of which you mentioned.

    These actions are wrong and toxic to be a part of, which is why I have always hesitated to join a party per se, feeling that voting as an independent served the purpose both for myself and for democracy.

    But following the Copenhagen fiasco, seeing the reaction to it - The Hartwell Report, Lord Stern's 'Revival of Rio,' and most especially Evo Morales 'World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth,' I am wondering if one is not going to have to bite the proverbial bullet and jump right in to politics.

    My own Canadian government is a neo-conservative religious right anti-science bunch which needs stopping. If the Liberals and the Green Party and the New Democratic Party could forget their differences, which pale in comparison to the minority Conservatives, they could form a government 'of the people.'

    Why are we not doing this?

    That people do not know how serious the environmental situation is could be a large part of it??

    The United States Social Forum just concluded a large meeting in Detroit, and are throwing their support behind Evo Morales 'Peoples' Initiiative.'

    I think we all should, and should absolutely demand that this movement be well represented in Cancun.

    Ghost is right, asking is not enough - we must somehow take back control from this freakish blend of right wing fear mongers.

    Warmist, and getting warmer,

    Manysummits

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 10:10pm on 03 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    CanadianRockies #124:

    "2005 wasn't an El Nino year like this past one. Nice graph here:" (CR)

    I disagree, and I will post a link to a reputable site, the scientific body which actually makes the measurements for the United States Government, rather than your site, which is a 'business as usual' funded anti AGW entity.

    I truly believe the visiting public will recognize the difference between you and the other denialists constant, toxic, corrosive, character-assassintion style and the warmists.

    Here is a reputable link to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

    Readers can look at the red and blue numbers, and decide for themselves what looks similar and what doesn't. (2004/2005 vs 2009/2010)

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 10:30pm on 03 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #123. manysummits

    You make me laugh all the time.

    Harper definitely wore the white hat at the stampede. Also good for a laugh.

    Schindler and that blog you just linked to are both part of the David Suzuki Party. So everything they say is totally predictable. Hansen told the same story... yet there he was, out there talking to the media constantly.

    Good luck with your political aspirations, though I don't think your devotion to the principles of the Bolivian Watermelon Party will help you in Canada in general, and particularly in Alberta.

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 10:58pm on 03 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    Well, if it's one thing we can be sure of, there will never be a shortage of pompous, self righteous posts from old hippies.

    "I presume you have all concrete in your home, no grass or shrubs or trees, no plants inside or outside, no wooden objects, no pictures of course of any of the above - just glass and steel and concrete - you know - a supporter of industrial processes and products."

    You forgot plastic. We like the look of wood, but wood's for burning so we get plastic that's made to look like wood.

    I personally like the mellow glow it gives when I have the fireplace nicely banked with a fire made from coal, imported rainforest logs and baby seal hides.

    "As for Celine Dion - well - not even a music lover heh?"

    What has Celine Dion got to do with music?

    You've got nothing to say, manysummits, and you say it too often.

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 11:56pm on 03 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #126 - My how the world has changed. Once upon a time people like you would have been more dubious of what comes from the government/establishment.

    That said, you are just plain wrong when you said that "2005 wasn't an El Nino year like this past one."

    Your link doesn't identify or even mention El Ninos so it is irrelevant to that point.


    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 00:15am on 04 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @Manysummits @118:

    "I presume you have all concrete in your home, no grass or shrubs or trees, no plants inside or outside, no wooden objects, no pictures of course of any of the above - just glass and steel and concrete"

    No, actually my house is bare limestone and granite, partly covered in ice - I thought that might appeal to you ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 01:35am on 04 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    Brunnen_G @ 128:

    "You've got nothing to say, manysummits, and you say it too often." (BR)

    ==============

    For someone who has nothing to say, and says it too often, you sure keep responding! What I wonder, is a tough guy like you doing for thrills these days, aside from burning coal?

    ///////////////////////////////////

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 01:37am on 04 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To CR @ 127:

    "Good luck with your political aspirations, though I don't think your devotion to the principles of the Bolivian Watermelon Party will help you in Canada in general, and particularly in Alberta." (CR)

    =================

    Wow CR - and here I thought it would!

    Why don't you tell us about David Suziki and David Schindler CR?

    ////////////////////////

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 02:29am on 04 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    129. At 11:56pm on 03 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #126 - My how the world has changed. Once upon a time people like you would have been more dubious of what comes from the government/establishment.

    Manysummits: Who are people like me?

    =========

    That said, you are just plain wrong when you said that "2005 wasn't an El Nino year like this past one."

    Well, I never said that, if you check the posts, you will see that it was you that said that?????

    ==============

    Your link doesn't identify or even mention El Ninos so it is irrelevant to that point.

    Well - I disagree again. The link has as part of its body: 'ensoyears', and below find the desription on the page:

    Cold and Warm Episodes by Season

    Changes to the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI)
    Link to Previous Version of ONI (ERSST.v3)


    DESCRIPTION: Warm (red) and cold (blue) episodes based on a threshold of +/- 0.5oC for the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) [3 month running mean of ERSST.v3b SST anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region (5oN-5oS, 120o-170oW)], based on the 1971-2000 base period. For historical purposes cold and warm episodes (blue and red colored numbers) are defined when the threshold is met for a minimum of 5 consecutive over-lapping seasons.

    ==================

    What part of this do you not understand?

    //////////////////////////////////////////

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 02:34am on 04 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    130. At 00:15am on 04 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @Manysummits @118:

    "I presume you have all concrete in your home, no grass or shrubs or trees, no plants inside or outside, no wooden objects, no pictures of course of any of the above - just glass and steel and concrete"

    No, actually my house is bare limestone and granite, partly covered in ice - I thought that might appeal to you ;-)"

    ===============

    That wasn't addressed to you.

    Do you get paid by the responses you provoke, I mean, if you are professional lobbyists?

    Of course you aren't, just intelligent skeptics.

    I can tell by the level of dialogue - you, Brunnen_G, and CanadianRockies.

    ////////////////

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 02:36am on 04 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    Well, enough of supposed conversation with the lobby.

    I have demonstrated my point again, I believe.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 03:22am on 04 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #133. manysummits

    You are right. I did say that "2005 wasn't an El Nino year like this past one."

    And true, you "never said that." You said:

    118. manysummits wrote:

    "This happened last in 2005, another El Nino year similar to the one just ended, with similar results."

    To which I responded as above. In retrospect, I should have noticed the word "similar" because one could say that it was. But for a good graphical description of this past major El Nino (comparable to 1998) at:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/june-2010-temperature-cooling-a-bit-as-el-nino-fades/

    Now, you dismissed that out of hand... without seeing the source information for it. Too bad, because you would have learned something.

    However, I confess. I just skimmed that site you offered and missed the mention of the El Nino factor. So I was wrong about that. For that I apologize.

    As for my comment about 'people like you,' you come off here as some idealistic revolutionary... the kind of person who would have a healthy scepticism for government sources of information. But, I guess when they support you beliefs you accept them eagerly.

    And I don't have to tell you about Suzuki and his associates, do I.

    February 10, 2008: Canadian Environmentalist David Suzuki Calls for skeptical leaders to be thrown ‘into jail’ - Excerpt: At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime. […] “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act,” said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. “It’s an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years.”

    We know what kind of 'science' and objectivity this kind of zealotry produce.

    So, good luck with your political career!

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 10:52am on 04 Jul 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #136 CanadianRockies wrote:

    "you come off here as some idealistic revolutionary"

    Maybe you're too young to remember the 60s, but it was the biggest explosion of conformism of the twentieth century. The reason it exploded so effectively was that its rhetoric of "revolution" enabled conformists to describe themselves as non-conformists.

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 11:14am on 04 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @manysummits #134:

    "That wasn't addressed to you.

    Do you get paid by the responses you provoke, I mean, if you are professional lobbyists?"

    Actually, that was meant to be a joke.

    It was you who said that "us denialists" lacked the ability to laugh - well, pot..kettle..black!

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 12:30pm on 04 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To CanadianRockies #136: re David Suziki etc...

    I will answer you at 5 am here in Calgary because you have been decent enough to answer me re the El Nino comparison.

    I really have no idea where you are coming from science wise.

    You are quite right that I am and always have been idealistic, perhaps in some ways revolutionary. You are also right that I have a healthy skepticism of government, but you are wrong to think that government equates to government sources of information in all departments.

    Harper and the Conservatives here in Canada are actively anti-science, and are attempting, effectively, to muzzle government sources of information from the scientific community. Why do you think he is doing that if not for the fact that the science he is trying to withhold from the public is counter to his plans?

    It is the science that is dependable, whether from government sources or from individual and reputable scientists.

    At NASA during the Bush years, Bush and company tried to have James Hansen muzzled, and at one point fired. What is it they were afraid of?

    As it turns out both Harper and Bush are pro 'drill baby drill,' and what they are both against is man made fossil fuel global warming.

    Are James Hansen and David Suziki wild cards?

    No, they are mainstream science, and the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence supports their views on AGW - that is in the nature of a fact, quite irrespective of whether you personally think the science is flawed. The United States National Academy of the Sciences has just come out with a report to Congress two years in the making which confirms all that I say.

    As for David Suziki being a revolutionary - yes, like myself. A mainstream science supporter, but suspicious of right wing quasi-religious anti-science governments in particular, and the machinations of Western Civilization in general, which has dominated the world for 500 years and now trashed the natural environment as well as destroying the lives and spirits of hundreds of millions of people around the world, and all in the name of democracy.

    NOAA and NASA are government sources of information, but they are mainstream science, which has emphatically not been muzzled yet.

    I know science, and this gives me the advantage of seeing just who is blowing the proverbial smoke.

    As for throwing denialists in jail, I think unquestionably some are paid lobbyists promoting disinformation for pay. I think these are the ones David Suziki is speaking of, and I think there is a case for criminal activity on their parts. The courts will have to decide. I am sure Dr. Suziki is as frustrated as the rest of the warmists at the unequal struggle funding wise between mainstream science and the powers that be, which are business as usual corporations working hand in glove with their political friends.

    Pity neither you nor the other skeptics are willing to discuss anything other than these arguments, when the documentary film "The Antarctic Challenge: A Global Warning," was what started all this.

    Isn't that curious how that always happens?

    Sukiki has been branded and defamed, as have I. As have other members of the mainstream of science, or Al Gore, etc...

    But the one thing that is never discussed by you skeptical denialists is the documentary film which started your rants, you and Brunnen_G and others.

    There is, literally, documentary proof of global warming in the film, it's right up to date, and discussing it, even acknowledging that the film exists would - harm the skeptics case.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 12:35pm on 04 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    Bowman and Peter317:

    Anything to distract from the documentary film:

    The Antarctic Challenge: A Global Warning.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1306953/combined

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 12:37pm on 04 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    #135 manysummits wrote:
    Well, enough of supposed conversation with the lobby.

    I have demonstrated my point again, I believe.

    - Manysummits -

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

    The only point you've demonstrated is that old hippies never get tired of the sound of their own voices. If only there was some way to harness that power, we need never use oil again.

    Forget wind power, we need windbag power!

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 12:50pm on 04 Jul 2010, davblo wrote:

    bowmanthebard #137: 'Maybe you're too young to remember the 60s, but it was the biggest explosion of conformism of the twentieth century. The reason it exploded so effectively was that its rhetoric of "revolution" enabled conformists to describe themselves as non-conformists.'

    Interesting point.

    I wondered how one could verify whether such an "explosion of conformism" actually happened (since bownamthebard gave no supporting evidence).

    First attempt at a search revealed...

    Pop Art

    "In the early 1960s Pop Art exploded onto the streets of New York.."

    "...it was truly Pop Art that, despite inadvertently promoting the very thing it seemed to be satirising, that is, consumer culture..."

    1 : 0 in favour of the theory...

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 1:29pm on 04 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:


    Mainstream science.

    There's only one problem with mainstream science. It's usually proven wrong.

    Mainstream science once told us that thought originated in the heart and the brain was an organ for cooling the blood.

    Mainstream science once told us that the sun revolved around the Earth, which was the centre of the universe.

    Mainstream science once told told us that maggots would spontaneously appear in rotting meat.

    Mainstream science once told us that smoking tobacco was beneficial to our health.

    Mainstream science once told us that there was nothing smaller than the atom.

    Mainstream science now tells us that the piffling amount of a minor greenhouse gas we add to the atmosphere is changing the weather and will doom mankind to a Mad Max-esque future.

    I wonder what mainstream science will tell us tomorrow?

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 2:24pm on 04 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @Brunnen_G #143:

    You're right there.

    There was only one Galileo, one Newton, one Darwin, one Einstein ...
    Their views were largely ignored and ridiculed by the rest.
    Now, all of a sudden, we have most of the 'scientific' community singing largely from the same hymnsheet.
    I wouldn't call it 'mainstream' science, I'd call it 'fashionable' science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 2:32pm on 04 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @rossglory #116:

    As you apparently don't intend to answer my question, let me put it another way:

    Which part of the nearly £40 billion per annum in fuel tax at the pumps in the UK do you consider to be "massively subsidising" fossil fuels?

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 3:47pm on 04 Jul 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #120 peter317

    "No. You tell me exactly what you mean by "massive subsidies".

    i mean subsidies from taxpayers that are massive. uncosted externalities are also a subsidy of a kind that are paid by us all. does that help?

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 3:51pm on 04 Jul 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #bowman

    here's a classic recently published example of the complexity of ecosystems that only study can determine....and why co2 fertilisation will be of limited effect.

    Excess Nitrogen Favors Plants That Respond Poorly to Rising CO2
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100630132742.htm

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 4:01pm on 04 Jul 2010, SR wrote:

    @143

    Every single point on that list of yours is completely false. Your logic is also very strange.

    Consider that at least 1 explanation has to be correct. Either AGW consensus view is correct, or it is not. Your theory is that it is not, so all your logic about science always being wrong cuts both ways. As I say, strange logic that will only lead you into an cul-de-sac of indecision.

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 4:34pm on 04 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    To Richard Black: re \\\ Petrolheads ///

    Your courageous article has provided me with the opportunity to realize a major new personal insight.

    Perhaps I could share some of that with you and your readers on this Fourth of July, American Independence Day - Happy Birthday to the citizens of the United States of America!

    The 'petrolheads,' i.e. race car drivers, are practitioners of the mythological quest, not unlike the devotional pursuit which I was and am engaged in, both as a mountaineer and creative writer.

    Their avocation cannot be explained in terms of money or fame, for initially most race car drivers have neither. Every day they risk life and limb, and while they may be in a sense unaware at first of the force which impels them to their art, I believe none can finally doubt that it is of a higher order than the mundane.

    Your espousal of this petrol pursuit is I think an indication that you too are involved in the mythological quest, as indeed are all right thinking human beings.

    But the times are currently against us - we 'mythos' believers.

    For me, science is a tool, and, like any tool, the master craftsman must be proficient in its use. But animating the craftsman, and elevating him at times into the category of architect, is the spirit deep within.

    We are all aware I think that something is terribly wrong - perhaps the skeptics realize this just as surely as those who decry our disrespect for the Earth and its many and myriad inhabitants - our collective web of life.

    A new way of thinking - of being, is upon us, and we are all more than a little afraid.

    The race car driver shares this fear at the beginning of every race, but has learned to become one with the car, and hence to survive.

    All the best Richard,

    Manysummits

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 5:21pm on 04 Jul 2010, manysummits wrote:

    In support of my #149: re 'Petrolheads'

    \\\ Mythos & Logos ///

    Blaise Pascal, French mathematician, a deeply religious man (1623-1662)

    "When I see the blind and wretched state of men, when I survey the whole universe in its deadness, and man left to himself with no light, as though lost in this corner of the universe without knowing who put him there, what he has to do, or what will become of him when he dies, incapable of knowing anything, I am moved to terror, like a man transported in his sleep to some terrifying desert island, who wakes up quite lost, with no means of escape. The I marvel that so wretched a state does not drive people to despair."

    ===========

    "In 1882, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) proclaimed that God was dead. In a sense, he was right. Without myth, cult, ritual and ethical living, the sense of the sacred dies...

    When we contemplate the dark epiphanies of the twentieth century, we see that modern anxiety is not simply the result of self-indulgent neurosis. We are facing something unprecedented...

    The myth of the hero was not designed to provide us with icons to admire, but was designed to tap into the vein of heroism within ourselves...

    We need myths...

    that will help us identify with all our fellow-beings...

    that help us to realize the importance of compassion...

    that help us to create a spiritual attitude...

    that help us to venerate the earth as sacred once again, instead of using it merely as a 'resource'...

    This is crucial, because unless there is some kind of spiritual revolution that is able to keep abreast of our technological genius, we will not save our planet."

    - Karen Armstrong, "A Short History of Myth" (2005)

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 6:40pm on 04 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @rossglory #146:

    Please try to be a wee bit less nebulous.
    Like try answering my #145

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 6:47pm on 04 Jul 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #147 rossglory wrote:

    here's a classic recently published example of the complexity of ecosystems that only study can determine....and why co2 fertilisation will be of limited effect.

    Did someone say CO2 would have an unlimited positive effect on plants?

    I'm still waiting for someone to tell me of all those supposed negative effects CO2 has on plants.

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 6:52pm on 04 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    148. At 4:01pm on 04 Jul 2010, SR wrote:
    @143

    Every single point on that list of yours is completely false. Your logic is also very strange.

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

    Oh really?

    Aristotle put forward the idea that the brain cooled blood and thought and emotion come from the heart. This was held as the mainstream view and it would be centuries before this was corrected.

    Francesco Redi was the first to seriously challenge the idea that maggots (and other organisms) spontaneously generated from rotting meat which was mainstream science since the days of the Roman Empire. This bunkum wouldn't finally die until 1859, when Louis Pasteur disproved it once and for all.

    Galileo was censured by the church and ordered not to promote a heliocentric solar system. The mainstream science had the solar system as being geocentric. Astronomers of the time supported the geocentric universe (at least publicly, they feared persecution for going against the consensus. History really does repeat itself...)

    In the seventeenth century tobacco was prescribed by doctors as a cure all. Until the 20th century they were still advising people "of a nervous disposition" to smoke as a calmative.

    John Dalton wrote his atomic theory and Dalton's Law in 1803. Atoms were thought to be the smallest possible division of matter until 1897 when J.J. Thomson discovered the electron.


    You were saying?

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 7:20pm on 04 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @Brunnen_G #153:

    Astronomers of the time supported the geocentric universe (at least publicly, they feared persecution for going against the consensus. History really does repeat itself...)

    The Ptolemaic system stuck because it actually predicted the positions of the planets better than did Galileo's heliocentric model - although nobody questioned the mechanism behind the epicyclic motion of the planets necessary for Ptolemy's model.
    This held sway until Kepler hypothesised that the planets described an elliptical orbit.

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 7:43pm on 04 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    Interesting point peter. I didn't want to go into TOO much detail, we already have one windbag on the site who can post half a novel at a go.

    I wonder if SR will retract his 'false on every point' claim?

    The point I was making in #143 is that AGW is nothing more than the current mainstream view. In centuries to come our descendants will laugh at our era for believing this nonsense in the same manner we snigger at our ancestors for believing the Earth was the centre of the universe. And for pretty much the same reason...

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 8:05pm on 04 Jul 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @Brunnen_G #155:

    Sometimes I wonder if we're really more advanced today than those in ancient times.
    I can't imagine that we're significantly more intelligent - we may even be less so.
    It seems that the tools and instrumentation available to us today simply allows us to be wrong in greater detail ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 8:22pm on 04 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    Civilisation has increased human IQ to a degree, but it amazes me how readily people fall for the latest hokum.

    I think our tendency to conform is part of it. Few people enjoy being the outsider so if everyone is saying the sky is falling it takes a brave soul to say it isn't.

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 8:23pm on 04 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #139. manysummits

    You scold people for not choosing to watch this film you just discovered, "The Antarctic Challenge: A Global Warming."

    You describe it including "a run down on the likely fates of several species of penguins" and "Time-lapse of predicted flooding coastlines around the world" and "the director strips down to a swimming suit and swims in recently ice-free water."

    "likely" ... "predicted" ... stunt.

    This sounds almost as 'scientific' as Gore's science fiction thriller. So, really, why bother?

    Your other comments are just predictable talking points. Like this one:

    "At NASA during the Bush years, Bush and company tried to have James Hansen muzzled, and at one point fired."

    Yet Hansen was not muzzled, was he?

    "As it turns out both Harper and Bush are pro 'drill baby drill,' and what they are both against is man made fossil fuel global warming."

    Bush is gone. While the previous Liberal government signed Kyoto, they did absolutely nothing on that file. And the policy of Harper et al is to act in harmony with what the Americans do for the simple reason that our economies are so integrated.

    So, if you are upset about Harper's actions, blame Obama.

    In the meantime, the country with the most ambitious 'drill, baby, drill' plans, in extremely deep water, is Brazil, and they JUST raised more money to do that:

    "The capitalization plan further cements Brazil's determination to push ahead with the development of deep-water oil reserves that are seen as key to economic development, despite growing skepticism about offshore drilling sparked by BP's massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2211693520100622?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a49:g43:r3:c0.078431:b35114870:z0

    George Soros, one of Obama's main supporters, has a huge investment in Petrobras, Brazil's main Big Oil company. But they desperately need offshore oil rigs... so Obama's moratorium sure is convenient for them:

    "The irony is that most of the deep-water rigs idled by the moratorium may shortly be snapped up by a Petrobras apparently undeterred by images of tar balls on Rio's beaches. Petrobras plans to drill to a depth of 14,022 feet, a depth that makes our 500-foot limit laughable..."

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/538291/201006232349/Salazars-Ban-Is-Soros-Bonanza.aspx

    Maybe you should criticize 'drill, baby, drill' Brazil... or are they too close to Bolivia?

    Bush is gone. Maybe you should criticize Obama... and demonstrate that you are not simply using environmental issues for partisan politics, as Watermelons do.

    As for Suzuki, he once WAS a scientist... a geneticist back when that field was elementary. Now he's a politician and TV eco-evangelist. He is definitely not a revolutionary or he wouldn't be given an endless soapbox on the government propaganda network (CBC).


    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 8:32pm on 04 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    137. bowmanthebard wrote:

    "Maybe you're too young to remember the 60s, but it was the biggest explosion of conformism of the twentieth century. The reason it exploded so effectively was that its rhetoric of "revolution" enabled conformists to describe themselves as non-conformists."

    No, I remember that era. And I agree with your point, though I would not have at that time. In retrospect it is much clearer. And, after all, it is young people who are most susceptible to peer pressure.

    Your comment reminds me of something I saw somewhere (can't recall where at the moment) where some guru-leader was standing in front of a crowd who were chanting, in unison, "we are all individuals."

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 8:46pm on 04 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    @159

    The leader in question was simply known as 'Brian'.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVygqjyS4CA

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 8:47pm on 04 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    It turned out he wasn't the Messiah, he was a very naughty boy...

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 9:41pm on 04 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #161. Brunnen_G wrote:

    "It turned out he wasn't the Messiah, he was a very naughty boy..."

    Thanks for that reminder. We actually have that at home on video but haven't watched it for too long. Its my favourite Monty Python movie, with toooo many parallels to today's world.

    Blessed are the cheesemakers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 9:45pm on 04 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    157. Brunnen_G wrote:

    "Civilisation has increased human IQ to a degree, but it amazes me how readily people fall for the latest hokum.

    I think our tendency to conform is part of it. Few people enjoy being the outsider so if everyone is saying the sky is falling it takes a brave soul to say it isn't."

    Did you say Jehovah?!?!!

    And my favourite part of Life of Brian is the end, where they are all singing 'Always look on the bright side of life.' The doomsday gang must hate that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 10:55pm on 04 Jul 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    From Formula 1 to the Life of Brian in 163 posts is an achievement I guess. As someone who finds motor racing nearly as dull a spectator sport as golf, I will leave the analysis to those who actually care.

    Re post 89 regarding Panorama -

    "Buried away on late night TV once, is not the same as reporting say
    in the science and environment website though..."

    As no one else seems to have bothered to correct this glorious lie, I thought I would. The climate change episode of Panorama was on at 8:30pm on a Monday evening, which is 'Prime Time' on the BBC's main channel. Plus there were blogs and a repeat.

    Barry: If you are going to lie about something as obvious and transparent as tv scheduling, how to you hope to persuade the great unwashed (including people like me) to trust you on matters of science!

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 11:19pm on 04 Jul 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #163 CanadianRockies wrote:

    The doomsday gang must hate that.

    There are so many spot-on, nail-hit-on-the-head, bell-ringing moments in The Life of Brian and its take on conformist-"revolutionary" movements that we can safely say (1) they haven't changed much in 30+ years, and (2) the Python writers were amazingly perceptive to see these movements for what they were, and to ridicule them as timelessly as they did.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 11:30pm on 04 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    164. At 10:55pm on 04 Jul 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:
    From Formula 1 to the Life of Brian in 163 posts is an achievement I guess. As someone who finds motor racing nearly as dull a spectator sport as golf, I will leave the analysis to those who actually care.

    The climate change episode of Panorama was on at 8:30pm on a Monday evening, which is 'Prime Time' on the BBC's main channel. Plus there were blogs and a repeat.

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

    Nothing is duller than golf. F1 is a close second, but unless those golf carts have been souped up to buggery there's little chance of an amusing pile up.

    I no longer live in the UK so luckily missed the Panorama propaganda show.

    I can't say I'm shocked to discover the show was repeated and blogged. The BBC has become a comedic mouthpiece for the AGW lobby, including the government who see this as a wonderful opportunity to tax the arse off Joe Sucker.

    If the IPCC announced tomorrow that AGW was caused by gingers, good old auntie would do a panorama "documentary" exploring whether redheads were a threat or a menace.

    @CanadianRockies

    Yeah, I love that movie. Seen it a couple of months ago (again!) so that's why the line just popped to mind.

    And yeah, Scary paralells to today. The multitude has popped round to agree with everything the AGW lobby says.

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 06:45am on 05 Jul 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Brunnen_G at #153

    You wrote: In the seventeenth century tobacco was prescribed by doctors as a cure all.

    True, that was the general attitude. However it wasn't as simple as that - there were also views which were very critical of the health impacts of tobacco smoking. For example, in 1602 in England, the publication of Worke of Chimney Sweepers (also referenced as Chimny-Sweepers or A Warning for Tabacconists [sic]), by an anonymous doctor identified as 'Philaretes'.

    This states that illness of chimney sweepers is caused by soot and that tobacco may have similar effects. "Tobacco works by evaporating man's 'unctuous and radical moistures'- as was demonstrated in the fact that it was employed to cure gonorrhea by drying up the discharge. But this process, if too long continued, could only end by drying up 'spermatical humidity,' too, rendering him incapable of propagation. Experience also showed that tobacco left men in a state of depression, 'mopishness and sottishness,' which in the long run must damage memory, imagination and understanding." Based on 'the humours', Philaretes discussed many of the health risks which were later proven to be correct.

    (Brian Inglis, The Forbidden Game: A Social History of Drugs, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1975.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 06:47am on 05 Jul 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    CanadianRockies at #163

    If your favourite part of Life of Brian is the end, where they are all singing 'Always look on the bright side of life.' then you presumably remember the line "Always look on the bright side of death, just before you take your terminal breath'.

    Or maybe that is too much realism for you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 07:31am on 05 Jul 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    Temperature variation through 2000 years in China: An uncertainty analysis of reconstruction and regional difference. Ge, Q.-S., J.Y. Zheng, Z.-X. Hao, X.-M. Shao, W.-C. Wang, and J. Luterbacher. 2010. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L03703, doi:10.1029/2009GL041281.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL041281.shtml

    Twenty-three published proxy temperature series over China spanning the last 2000 years were selected for an uncertainty analysis in five climate regions. Results indicated that, although large uncertainties are found for the period prior to the 16th century, high level of consistency were identified in all regions during the recent 500-years, highlighted by the two cold periods 1620s–1710s and 1800s–1860s, and the warming during the 20th century. The latter started in Tibet, Northwest and Northeast, and migrated to Central East and Southeast. The analysis also indicates that the warming during the 10–14th centuries in some regions might be comparable in magnitude to the warming of the last few decades of the 20th century which was unprecedented within the past 500 years.

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 08:01am on 05 Jul 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Mango at #169

    In the bit you have highlighted, it says "some regions" (in contrast to the high-level of consistency for ALL regions over the recent 500 years).

    How many are "some" regions, and how extensive were they?

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 08:14am on 05 Jul 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    Simon

    There is a pdf link but here's the Wattsup version:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/04/new-chinese-study-in-grl-disputes-the-hockey-stick-conclusions/

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 08:54am on 05 Jul 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Thanks Mango (at #171)

    From that new link, as I understand it then, "For the regions of NE and CE, the warming peaks during 900s–1300s are higher than that of the late 20th century, though connected with relatively large uncertainties."

    From what I can see from the information there, the comparison is based on a combination of proxies in different regions, covering varying periods, with a range of uncertainty estimates associated with each method and the combined results. Is that right?

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 09:07am on 05 Jul 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ hotashes

    Nice paraphraseing of both documents- care to post the nine major errors in the film? Or the ACTUAL rulings in the ofcom report- there's only a few...

    or would that not fit with your pre-conceived stance?

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 10:07am on 05 Jul 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    sensibleoldgrannie @#67

    “Why is it that anything fun is bad for you or the environment?2

    Reminds me of Oliver Cromwell, at least the greens haven’t banned dancing yet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 10:08am on 05 Jul 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Have a read, of the the following, front page The Guardian 5th July 2010

    print edition headline below:

    Climategate has changed us for the better, say scientists
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatechange-hacked-emails-muir-russell

    a few choice highlights: (particularly, for me, the recognisation of my issues with computer models)

    Guardian:
    “But greater openness and engagement with their critics will not ensure that climate scientists have an easier time in future, warns Hulme. Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says – rather, the reverse. “This is not what the public and politicians expect, so handling and explaining this will be difficult

    Guardian:
    “Jones seems genuinely repentant, and has been completely open and honest about what has been done and why… speaking with humility about the uncertainty in the data sets,” she said.”

    Guardian:
    “The climate scientist most associated with efforts to reconciling warring factions, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said the idea of IPCC scientists as “self-appointed oracles, enhanced by the Nobel Prize, is now in tatters“. The outside world now sees that “the science of climate is more complex and uncertain than they have been led to believe“.

    Guardian
    “Roger Pielke Jr of the University of Colorado agreed that “the climate science community, or at least its most visible and activist wing, appeared to want to go back to waging an all-out war on its perceived political opponents”.

    I have been on the recieving end of some of certain activists vitriol, ie the ‘foot soldiers’ who can only parrot, quotes from how to treat a sceptic propaganda, fed to them. It has not been pleasant, in my local community (transitions towns), online, public meetings.

    I can agree with 95% of the content of the article.. (and I’ve been blocked by the Guardian from commenting, Realclimate are part of their environment network, so I’m not exactly the Guardians biggest fan. Especialy George Monbiots vitriol)

    I have received comments put out in the mainstream media, TV, radio, press, like ‘ flat earther’ or ‘anti science’, or ‘climate sabatouer’, ‘deniar’, from UK, Ministers of State, Prime Ministers, and journalists, for anyone even raising the above topics, and insisting that they are an issue.

    I, for the last 8 months, have received abuse, called all sorts of names, had my motivations questioned, my mental state questioned, had green peace threats (we know where you live’ ) had people walk away from me in public meetings. Just for saying what about,this, questioning the certainties, questioning the IPCC inaccuracies, questioning the acts designed to ’close down any debate’, questioning the believe in computer models vs real data..

    By some of the people in that article, via the media (ie Bob Ward, Watson), who have completely changed ther ‘message’ without any apparent shame.

    This article is a victory for all science. Let us, all forget about ‘post normal science.

    Thanks to Judith Curry (quoted in the Guardian) for her patience, particulary if she read any of my longer comments and for a number of her comments, particulary, for all of comment 48# in the link below (choice highlights)

    http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/17/some-spicy-curry/

    “One element of scientific integrity is when to speak up vs when to stay silent.

    The Georgia Tech students and alumni expected me to speak out on this issue When others failed to speak up, I felt that I needed to step up to the plate.”

    “I have actually found the people who habituate the technical skeptical blogs and their proprietors to be much more open minded than most of the “warmist” blogs.”

    “So how do we proceed from here? We need some open, rational discourse on a range of topics from openness and transparency in the science, improvements to the assessment process, a dialogue on an expanded range of policy options, the politics of climate science, improved communications, etc.”

    Anybody here going to the Guardians public meeting, 14th July,
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/30/guardian-debate-climate-science-emails

    It would be nice to say hello, it sounds like it could actually be very positive, instead of ‘dismiss’ the sceptic, that maybe I was expecting.
    Steve Mcintyre is going I believe and a number of others who vae been commenting a "collide a Scape" and "Bishop Hill"

    From this blog:
    http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/07/01/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/comment-page-7/#comment-10210

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 12:24pm on 05 Jul 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    There is some common ground between warmists and sceptics, i.e. energy security, clean air, population control etc, however the vitriol from warmists that was mentioned in post # 75 is why, when this whole sorry business is over, the warmists can never be forgiven.

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 12:42pm on 05 Jul 2010, hotashes wrote:

    You suggest I'm paraphrasing the UK judgement but most of it is concerned if partisan Political views are being expressed in our school and are not directly related to the science.
    It should be telling that the judge still allowed the film to be distributed and viewed by school children.
    Here are some further extracts from the judgement
    22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:
    "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."
    44. I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – indeed the Government's adherence is to the IPCC views - but the present package in my judgment does enough to make it clear both what the mainstream view is, insofar as Mr Gore departs from it, and that there are views of "sceptics" who do not accept even the consensus views of the IPCC. The Defendant will not be promoting partisan political views by enabling the showing of AIT in the context of the discussions facilitated by the Guidance Note, and is not under a duty to forbid the presentation of it in that context.
    Now back to the Ofcom ruling; your reliance on this ruling to show how scientifically valid this film is, is unfortunately flawed because it focuses on whether or not the documentary broke Rule 2.2 that states that: “Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience”. The problem is that Ofcom adopts the position that as it was made sufficiently clear to viewers that this programme was not the mainstream (and that because most people are aware on the mainstream), so Ofcom didn't need to make a judgement on the claims made by the film.

    Extract from Ofcom's ruling:

    "This rule is therefore designed to deal with content which materially misleads the audience so as to cause harm or offence.” (Emphasis in original). Ofcom therefore only regulates misleading material where that material is likely to cause harm or offence. As a consequence, the requirement that content must not materially mislead the audience is necessarily a high test.

    In dealing with these complaints therefore Ofcom had to ascertain – not whether the programme was accurate - but whether it materially misled the audience with the result that harm and/or offence was likely to be caused. It is not within Ofcom’s remit or ability in this case as the regulator of the ‘communications industry’ to establish or seek to adjudicate on ‘facts’ such as whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon, nor is Ofcom able to reach conclusions about the validity of any particular scientific theories.

    (b) Omission of views and facts in a way that materially misled so as to be harmful or offensive
    It is possible for a programme to mislead its audience by omission. A programme can present views and facts in such a way that by omitting crucial information or evidence, the viewer is misled.

    The choice of what material to include in a programme is an editorial decision for the broadcaster and is not one on which Ofcom can or should intervene unless there has been a breach of the Code. Unlike the rules on due impartiality there is no requirement under Rule 2.2 for the broadcaster to ensure that a wide range of significant views is included.
    The extent to which a programme may omit views and not mislead will depend on the particular programme. In this case, it was clear to viewers that this programme was a polemic and that it would take a certain ‘angle’. In such a context, where the programme does not claim to be a balanced analysis of the issues, the audience would expect this sort of approach."

    I actually agree with the approach Ofcom took – who are they to be reviewing the science? It is not part of their remit.

    Labmunkey you seem to be fixated by both films and not on the science. Like many who still fixate on Mann's 'Hockey Stick' can't see that the field has moved on. The Great Climate Change Swindle is not something to base one's opinion on.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

    As for you challenge to post Gore's mistakes – post to follow shortly!

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 12:45pm on 05 Jul 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 176

    Well we can see already the 'disentangling' of 'bang wagon policies' from AGW- i.e. everything they thought they could sneak in under the guise of AGW. It certainly seems that even the politicians are sensing the way the wind is blowing on this one and are starting to distance themselves from it (all but Cameron unfortunatley).

    When this bubble finally bursts, there will be a lot of questions to be answered and unfortunatley i think it will be science that will suffer the worst- because you can be damned sure that the politicians won't take the wrap for this.

    Worst scientific debacle in centuries, further proof if any that science and politics should be kept as far apart as possible.

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 12:48pm on 05 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    Does this Chinese study mean the AGW lobby will drop the word 'unprecedented' from their dogma?

    Speaking of the AGW lobby, I wonder if Richard will do a blog about this?

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 12:53pm on 05 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    #176 Smiffie wrote:
    There is some common ground between warmists and sceptics, i.e. energy security, clean air, population control.

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

    I can't say I agree with population control. There's no way to do it without becoming monsters.

    However, as the rest of the world develops to the standard of life found in the west, population growth might slow, which would be a good thing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 1:08pm on 05 Jul 2010, hotashes wrote:

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

  • 182. At 1:50pm on 05 Jul 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ hotashes
    Hotashes you are either confused, or trying to confuse the issue.
    I brought the great global warming swindle up in response to your reliance on ‘An inconvenient truth’. I then brought up the high court ruling, which found 9 major scientific flaws in the film as a counter to the ‘film is scientifically sound’ statement you made. I then brought the ofcom ruling up, purely to stop you trying to discredit it over its content.
    You’re arguing in circles thinking you have a point when I only brought these things up in response to something you’d said; namely that Al Gore and his film are a credible source of information, which if you still believe to be true, is a worrying sign.
    I do not base my views on the AGW theory on either film. I do not base them on the thoroughly discredited hocky stick. I do not base them on my political or social view-points.
    I base my views on the fact that due to my scientific background I have found far too many inconsistencies, far too many inaccuracies/over exaggerations and far too much extrapolation off suspect data for me to have any ‘faith’ in the theory at all. The basic assumptions behind the AGW theory are flawed, the data used to ‘back it up’ is flawed, missing, selectively used or extrapolated and the models used to ‘cement’ the theory and the prediction have been proven time and time again to be wholly inaccurate and impossible to reproduce reliably.
    About the only thing that could possibly convince me that the AGW theory had any basis in reality would be thorough, reproducible and independently verified work to show that climate sensitivity wrt to C02 is high. That is literally the last hope of a very very shoddy and politically motivated theory.

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 1:58pm on 05 Jul 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    In my post @#176 I should have referred to post #175 and not
    #75

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 2:52pm on 05 Jul 2010, hotashes wrote:

    Labmunkey here are the 'Major Scientific Flaws' with Al Gore's movie. Again please see for further details http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/10/al-gores-inconvenient-truth.html

    1. Sea level rise of up to 7 metres will be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.

    Burton stated the film gave the impression that the 7 meter rise could happen in the near future. Gore does not state this. Just that coast could be affected soon. Please see http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

    2. Low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of global warming.

    This is definitely not a major science based flaw. It is a reference to sea level rise (see above link).

    3. The "Ocean Conveyor" in the North Atlantic will shut down

    Gore suggests that this density-driven ocean circulation system could collapse in the North Atlantic if it were to receive a large influx of cold water. The 2007 assessment of the IPCC states that it is very unlikely that the ocean conveyor belt will shut down, but very likely that it will slow down by 2100 (p. 16 of WGI summary for policymakers).

    4. There is a direct relationship between historic rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature

    Quote from the judgement: Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

    It's not a major scientific flaw. It is established there is a link. It was a poor choice presenting the graph like he did, but the link he mentions is still real.

    5. The receding snows of Kilimanjaro are due to global warming

    The judge says Al Gore should not have implied the snow of Kilimanjaro is melting only due to global warming. He should have mentioned there are other factors involved. Unfortunately again he oversimplified the science. It is not a major flaw. There is evidence that the world's mountain glaciers are melting fast.

    6. Lake Chad's disappearance is due to global warming

    Yes he got this wrong, but does it mean that other lakes aren't drying out?

    7. The impact of Hurricane Katrina was due to global warming

    Again he oversimplified the science but again not exactly a major scientific flaw see http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm

    8. Polar bears are dying due to disappearing ice

    It's not really a major scientific flaw it just an emotional tug on the heartstrings. It doesn't undermine the science of Climate Change. But this study might be of interest as it indicates polar bear are starting to feel the effects and eventually the effects could be significant

    9. Coral reef bleaching events are due to global warming

    In part, I've got to disagree with the judge. He may have oversimplified what the reality of the debate but there are issues with increase sea temps bleaching Coral reefs.
    http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/search/search-coral-bleaching.html
    http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/publications/misc_pub/climate_change_vulnerability_assessment/climate_change_vulnerability_assessment

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 2:53pm on 05 Jul 2010, hotashes wrote:

    Labmunkey
    1. I never said the film was scientifically sound – just that Lord Monkton should not be trusted to review anything scientific.
    2. You keep referring to major scientific flaws in Gore's Film. This is simply not true. Some corrections were required but most where minor and where definitely not major scientific flaws. (see post abve)
    3. You stand by The Great Global Warming film despite it manipulating graphs, misrepresenting science – and trotting out the old 'it’s the sun theory' which has been discredited in the form that the film presented
    4. It was you who said you would stand by the high court ruling. It was you who suggested I should look at it. I only tried to show you why this was unwise – instead you should be looking at the science.
    5. Time and time again I've said the science has moved on since this movie
    6. The hockey stick is not discredited – seriously if you're even mentioning this you're going to come in for a tough time justifying your knowledge of science

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 2:54pm on 05 Jul 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #163 canadianrockies

    "And my favourite part of Life of Brian is the end, where they are all singing 'Always look on the bright side of life.' The doomsday gang must hate that."

    love life of brian, know it virtually word for word.

    but trying to paint us doomsayers as conformists and you lot as free thinking, free sprirts is rubbish (as i've said soooo many times).

    it's a bog standard mainstream meme from the inhofe, marano, wuwt etc stables. try something new for heaven's sake

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 3:06pm on 05 Jul 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    Brunnen_G @#180
    We become monsters if we impose population control but it is OK to do nothing while the third world starve.

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 3:18pm on 05 Jul 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ hotashes #185

    1-if i got that wrong i apologise

    2- i disagree on this point. You can dress it up as 'emotional heartstrings' or 'getting the point across' or whatever. But gore made claims, that were not backed up by any fact- sea level rises, glaciers melting, polar bears drowning etc. He was deliberatley misleading in his film.

    3- no i don't, i have said the science has moved on since then, i only offered it as a counter point to an equally, if not more flawed film.

    4- did, or did not the high court ruling say the flim was misleading and could not be shown in schools as a documentary- but only as a film- and only if the context was thoroughly explained and counter-points highlighted.

    5- and i did too- kinldy READ my post at 182.

    6- really? i was under the impression that his selective use of proxies was.... questionable at best? And how do you justify the temperature rise being significant, when it rests WELL within the error limits of the proxies?

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 3:32pm on 05 Jul 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ hotashes and your #184

    1- there is a section in his film where he depicts the 7m sea level rises on the island of manhatten. 7m sea level rises are not going to happen any time soon. all evidence points to the current 3.4 mm /year average rate continuing.

    therefore he was misleading and being alarmist with not scientific backing.

    2- see post above. also see relevant recent work on the islands SINKING.

    3- you've just argued my point there...

    4- there is zero scientific evidence that co2 causes temperature rises. the link is purely coinscidental until someone can prove the climates sensitivity wrt c02, also current observations totally disprove that theory. Correlation is not cause.

    5-i'd say that was a scientific flaw, stating something was happening due to a factor, when in reality it isn't. There is also significant evidence that of the very small number of glaciers that are actually measured, most are showing a positive mass balance. Do your research.

    6-no- but it doesn't prove they are either.

    7- all current data suggests hurricane numbers/severities/frequencies are falling at that there is no linkg between climate change (man made or not) and hurricane frequency

    8- not really a scientific flaw?? it's a downright lie. serisously- just how bad does something have to be before you accept it as wrong?

    9- this is an ongoing study- early indications were that bleaching was occuring due to global warming, then work came out to show that the initial work was flawed. However since then, more work has come out to support the initial stance- quite confusing and an ever changing (very interesting) field atm.
    But this is irrelevant to AGW as it is a symptom not a cause.

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 3:41pm on 05 Jul 2010, Barry Woods wrote:




    Oh lord!

    David Hampton: Carbon Coach

    "If CO2 were purple we would have witnessed the sky change colour in our lives "

    http://www.henley-in-transition.org.uk/happening/carbon-coach/

    I was not very popular, when I went to their last meeting, it is MY town as well, they are organising, going intoi schools, educating children...

    SO, NO I can't just ignore it..

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 4:31pm on 05 Jul 2010, hotashes wrote:

    Labmunkey #188

    2. & 4. Again Gore's points ARE based on Science. The judge simple said that he had oversimplified the science too much for it not to be presented in a classroom without further discussion. Again Sea Levels are rising (http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm), and Galciers are Melting (http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm)
    It does not say counterpoints need to be discussed on that the science needs to be discussed in more detail than the film does

    3. Sorry I must have confused the following statements from you as support for the Great Global Warming Swindle when they are not;

    "The great global warming swindle, accurate and to the point"

    "the excellent film 'the great global warming swindle' which was reviewed by Ofcom, only had 4 points upheld about it, NONE of which were on the science, however it was not reported on … it was just a smear job"

    "I'll take a high court ruling over a lot of politicised nonsense anyday"

    6. Really, as I was under the impression that many people had now reproduced Mann et al's work using a number of statistical models and they had confirmed his initially premise concerning warming. I was also under the impression that other scientists have now used many different proxies and they all find support Mann's conclusions
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 4:54pm on 05 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    #187 Smiffie wrote:
    Brunnen_G @#180
    We become monsters if we impose population control but it is OK to do nothing while the third world starve.

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

    Where did I say we shouldn't be helping the third world?

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 4:55pm on 05 Jul 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @192.
    sea levels are rising. but at a steady 3.2 mm / year rise which shows no sign of changing.

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

    Thats raw data. it disproves anything that you may say to the contrary.

    I say again- check your research

    Glaciers growing- search it in WUWT or again, do some actual research- recent revelations on the IPCC glacier data perhaps??? By actual research i mean raw data, not summaries, not opinion pieces, ACTUAL scientific research, find the raw data and make your own conclusions.

    3- i did like the GGWS when it came out- some theories have been disproved, but some still stand (or at least haven't been disproved). There is certainly more scientific basis behind that film than gores- has there been any scientific points of contention held against the film?? Bearing in mind it was corrected and re-released.

    6- Yes, many people have reproduced manns hockey stick. most of them colleagues of his.

    The divergance issue still remains, the highly selective use of proxies remains, the basic statistical problem- that the puported temperature rise falls within the error limits, still remains.

    Please note- i am not arguing that the world has not warmed, and i am not arguing that manns hockey stick is not showing a real trend. However i do not agree that it is good work, i do not agree that it is a true representation of the data and i firmly believe that man is a shoddy scientist for his attempts to splice data and remove data sections that don't fit in with his theory.

    You can show me lists of people who support it, but none of them address these issues- regardless of the fact that the warming trend is probably real- the data is of such poor quality, that we cannot be certain.

    His hockey stick is a result of biased scientist, not an objective one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 5:13pm on 05 Jul 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    Brunnen_G @#192

    “Where did I say we shouldn't be helping the third world?”

    Sorry, did not mean you personally but the west.

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 6:01pm on 05 Jul 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    The thing is, we could help the third world and would be much better at it if it wasn't for the AGW lobby.

    The third world needs to industrialise, however it is being hampered by our insistence that they do so in a way that won't meet their needs.

    Solar and wind just won't cut it. If we want to see world hunger end, we need to start helping the 2 billion people who live without electricity get it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 6:25pm on 05 Jul 2010, hotashes wrote:

    189.

    ”4- there is zero scientific evidence that co2 causes temperature rises. the link is purely coinscidental until someone can prove the climates sensitivity wrt c02, also current observations totally disprove that theory. Correlation is not cause.”

    Sure there is. The physics shows how CO2 traps heat and how its release in the past has amplified the warming created by the earths orbit etc. Please see (Shemesh 2002), (Stott 2007)
    It has also been shown how CO2 can help spread warming around the earth (Cuffey 2001)


    ”5-i'd say that was a scientific flaw, stating something was happening due to a factor, when in reality it isn't. There is also significant evidence that of the very small number of glaciers that are actually measured, most are showing a positive mass balance. Do your research.”

    The World Glacier Monitoring Service actually monitors over 90 glaciers worldwide http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum08.html

    (Greene 2005) and the World Glacier Monitoring Service actually show that the mass loss from 1996 to 2005 is more than double the mass loss rate in the previous decade of 1986 to 1995 and over four times the mass loss rate over 1976 to 1985.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=cache:rFCXQ1wpbd8J:www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jan102007/69.pdf+himalayan+glaciers+2007

    ”7- all current data suggests hurricane numbers/severities/frequencies are falling at that there is no linkg between climate change (man made or not) and hurricane frequency”

    Increasing Frequency – you’re right could just be that we are better at spotting them than ever before. More work should be done into this area. Not sure where you get your data from to say they are decreasing.

    Increasing severities – see (Emanuel 2005), (Elsner 2008)


    ”8- not really a scientific flaw?? it's a downright lie. serisously- just how bad does something have to be before you accept it as wrong?”

    http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/935
    It is not a lie simply an over statement. More work needs to be done.

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 7:39pm on 05 Jul 2010, Chris wrote:

    I've said for a long time that what we need is an Electric F1!

    A large portion of the R&D funded by the sporting side of the existing F1 has filtered through over the years into improved design in internal combustion cars; and the same could happen to electric cars.

    Aside from the direct boost to the fledgling electric car industry; the buzz of a new twist to the sport would be fantastic.

    Yes it would also have green credentials but I think the sheer excitement of recent electric technology would win over fans without any of that. Induction pads in certain 'boost' sections of track, anyone? :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 8:08pm on 05 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    186. rossglory wrote:

    #163 canadianrockies

    "And my favourite part of Life of Brian is the end, where they are all singing 'Always look on the bright side of life.' The doomsday gang must hate that."

    love life of brian, know it virtually word for word.

    but trying to paint us doomsayers as conformists and you lot as free thinking, free sprirts is rubbish (as i've said soooo many times).

    -----------

    "We are all individuals."

    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 8:12pm on 05 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    168. simon-swede wrote:

    "CanadianRockies at #163

    Or maybe that is too much realism for you?"

    You miss the point. Reality is one thing. This is about one's attitude towards it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 8:17pm on 05 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Wow, hotashes is actually defending Gore's science fiction and Mann's schtick. And there really are WMDs still hidden in Iraq.

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 9:18pm on 05 Jul 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ hot ashes

    # 196

    excellent we're gettign somewhere (i am by no means 'having a go at you' here mate- i'm just debating with you- so if anything comes across as overly aggeressive/nasty then i assure you it was not intended as such)

    So C02- we have the theory- which i won't argue one jot. But, do you accept, that things do not happen as theoretically described once in a complex system- i.e. lab-based experimentation/theorising rarely survives real world exposure?

    It's a very common theme in science and shows that extrapolating the behaviour of c02 from theory and basic, highly controlled laboratory experiements is nothing but misleading and is in no way- scaleable.

    re- glaciers. So, we have data for 90 glaciers. a third of which show a positive mass balance, now- how many glaciers are there in the world? where are the ones that are receeding? and how are they measured?
    ( i already know this btw bud)

    re-hurricanes. i was of the distinct impression (and correct me if i'm wrong please) that some of the worlds foremost experts on hurricanes had come out to contest the climatologists assertions that hurricanes are becoming more severe/frequent?

    re-polar bears.
    it was a downright lie. the population that the recent studies have shown a decline in are the ones in the regions nearest to man, easiest to capture and with dwindling food reserves. It was an unrepresentative population, that was used to extrapolate a trend

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 10:24pm on 05 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    201. LabMunkey wrote:

    "re-polar bears.

    it was a downright lie. the population that the recent studies have shown a decline in are the ones in the regions nearest to man, easiest to capture and with dwindling food reserves. It was an unrepresentative population, that was used to extrapolate a trend"

    The key point here is that this famous 'poster child' population, in southern Hudson Bay, is the southernmost population in the world... so calling it "unrepresentative" is putting it extremely mildly.

    Since we WERE in a warming trend, that population was most susceptible to those impacts because it is on the margins of polar bear habitat. But now that the warming trend is apparently turning, that can be expected to change.

    The fact that it is "nearest to man" seems to suggest that there were direct human causes for its decline but that is not true.

    But there were indirect human impacts. Like a ban on hunting that population, and thus more bears competing for the same food with predictable results.

    And looking back a little further, a large proportion of these bears once fed at the Churchill, Manitoba dump, an artificial food supply which inflated their population over the natural carrying capacity. With that ended the results were also predictable. The same thing happened to the grizzlies in Yellowstone when they closed the dumps there in about 1970 (and EVERYWHERE where this has happened as one could easily predict). Now, after 35+ years of total protection, there are more grizzlies, but they are much smaller and spread over a larger area.

    It is true that these Hudson Bay bears are the "easiest to capture," but that capturing is done by researchers, making this completely atypical population the most studied and most famous.

    The bottom line is that COSEWIC, the panel that is responsible for monitoring the status of wildlife in Canada (and listing them as required) just did an evaluation of polar bears AGAIN in 2008 and left them listed as 'Special Concern,' the LEAST at-risk category - despite huge political pressure from the Americans to raise them to 'Threatened.' That assessment included the recognition of the recent problems of the Hudson Bay poster population and others as well as the much healthier status and GROWTH of many other populations. Details here:

    http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchdetail_e.cfm?id=167&StartRow=1&boxStatus=All&boxTaxonomic=All&location=All&change=All&board=5&commonName=&scienceName=&returnFlag=0&Page=1

    But, with the polar bear the charismatic poster child of the AGW movement, expect more Big Lies about them. And, of course, they will definitely ignore this point from that COSEWIC link:

    "Decreasing ice thickness in parts of the High Arctic may provide better habitat for the bears."

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 10:47pm on 05 Jul 2010, hotashes wrote:

    193. Labmunkey

    “sea levels are rising. but at a steady 3.2 mm / year rise which shows no sign of changing.

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

    Thats raw data. it disproves anything that you may say to the contrary.”


    I don’t remember saying anything to the contrary. I simply stated that Gore didn’t make a ‘major scientific error’ concerning this issue in his film. He just didn’t state the timeframe over which the sea level rise is likely to occur.


    ”6- Yes, many people have reproduced manns hockey stick. most of them colleagues of his.

    The divergance issue still remains, the highly selective use of proxies remains, the basic statistical problem- that the puported temperature rise falls within the error limits, still remains.”

    For information on the divergence problem please see "On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes" (D’Arrigo 2008)

    As for you statement concerning use of selective proxies. A considerable portion of tree ring data collected on all inhabited continents is freely available online (Grissino-Mayer and Fritts 1997). I’m sure you’ll be able to find something here http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/links.htm

    But it doesn’t really matter is in Paleoclimatology they now use a wide range of proxi indicators, which aren’t affect by the divergence problem. A great Example can be found here http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

    Examples of proxi studies include;
    Boreholes (Huang 2000)
    Stalagmites (Smith 2006)
    Glacier length (Oerlemans 2005)
    Corals (Gagan et al. 2000, Cole 2003)
    Marine sediments (Rad et al. 1999, Jiang et al. 2002)
    Ice Isotopes (Thompson et al. 2003)

    As for the statistical side of this issue try (Mann 2008) where Mann compares a number of proxies to reduce the error.

    As for Mann’s supposed use for bad statistics see (Wahl 2007)

    This range of proxies and methodologies to calculating past temperatures allows independent confirmation of the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 09:04am on 06 Jul 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ hotashes

    "I simply stated that Gore didn’t make a ‘major scientific error’ concerning this issue in his film. He just didn’t state the timeframe over which the sea level rise is likely to occur. "
    that's bull. he knew precisely what he was saying and the effect it would have. the whole thing was framed in the '10 years' to save the planet line. If you think that wasn't the message he was trying to convey, being a career politician, then you're very nieve.

    "This range of proxies and methodologies to calculating past temperatures allows independent confirmation of the past few decades are
    The hottest in the past 1,300 years"

    This is simply not the case!!! medieval warm period? the new york city data shows 1930 to be warmer than now, i'm literaly incredulous that you still support this work.

    The proxies have been shown, repeatedly to be highly selective. of the thousands available only a few were used and these were (of course) presenting a warming bias.

    The divergance problem still remains- you, and the climatologists can try and justify it any way you wish but you do NOT just stop using half a data series because it doesn't fit your trend. You show it ALL or none of it.

    The fact that the proxy data is used to establish the 'hottest in 1300 years bull' and then is summarily dropped once it hits 1960 and diverges is, as far as i'm concerned, scientific fraud.

    He is not representing the data in the 'true' light and is massaging it to fit his preconceived ideals.

    To put it in context, if i had data for, for example, an antibody that showed good immunogenicity, but then it turned out i'd spliced two data sets together, 'deleting' a section that didn't follow the trend i wanted and made false claims- i'd be fired on the spot.

    As for the statisitics, you can wrap it up in whatever calculation methods you, or they like, but from the very simple observation that the variation in the proxy data is higher than the 'observed' warming trend, means that you can not say- with any level of statistical certainty, that the warming trend is significant (DESPITE it being a real trend).

    I am not arguing the warming, i am just desperatley trying to get across the idea of 'good data'. The data man uses for his hockey stick is NOT good data. it is selective, it is dubiously presented, it is SPLICED and cannot be used to suggest the trend DESPITE the fact that the trend existed.

    You're clearly not a scientist mate (no insult intended), but you have to realise that in science the integrity of the data is sacrosant. You simply cannot treat data in the way he has. As for other people reproducing his work, hardly suprising given they used the same raw data. What about all the skeptics who used independant proxy data and came up with completely different results?

    what about Mann trying to 'HIDE' the MWP??

    It's just a massive debacle.

    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 09:06am on 06 Jul 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ canadian rockies #202.

    Yup, exactly that. There are so many other factors at play, but oh noes, it must be man made global warming.

    The worst of it is though, that the further and more desperate 'they' get to promote this theory, the shoddier and more suspect the 'science' becomes.

    The big looser out of this entire 'debate' has been science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 11:18am on 06 Jul 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #204 LabMunkey wrote:

    The fact that the proxy data is used to establish the 'hottest in 1300 years bull' and then is summarily dropped once it hits 1960 and diverges is, as far as i'm concerned, scientific fraud.

    I would add that the word 'divergence' is linguistic fraud. If observation fails to fit theory, then the correct term is 'failure', not 'divergence'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 207. At 9:42pm on 07 Jul 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Nissan, "Japan's No.3 automaker is due to launch a gasoline-electric Infiniti M sedan ... aiming for an improvement of 60 to 90 percent.."

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20009695-54.html?tag=nl.e797

    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 7:00pm on 19 May 2011, Victor wrote:

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

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.