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

'Warmist' attack smacks of 'sceptical' intolerance

Richard Black | 16:42 UK time, Wednesday, 22 September 2010

It seems that something new, and not altogether welcome, may be happening in the politicking over climate change.

Arctic Ocean

 

I have written before of the orchestrated villification that comes the way of climate scientists from some people and organisations who are unconvinced of the case for human-induced climate change - "sceptics", "deniers", as you wish.

Journalists, including your humble correspondent, receive our fair share too.

This week, for the first time, I am seeing the same pattern from their opponents.

Joe Romm, the physicist-cum-government-advisor-cum-polemicist, posted a blog entry highly critical of the Arctic ice article I wrote last week.

Headlined "Dreadful climate story by BBC's Richard Black", it takes me to task, essentially, for not mentioning human-induced climate change explicitly.

At least, that is the surface complaint; what my omission hides, he hints heavily, is an agenda aimed at downplaying the impacts of humanity's greenhouse gas emissions.

He then gives my email address and invites his readers to send in complaints. Many have, perhaps swayed by judgemental terms in his post such as "spin", "inexcusable", and "mis-reporting", with several citing his interpretation as gospel truth.

He is as entitled to his views as anyone else

 But this is, at least in my experience, the first time that "warmers" - those who, like Dr Romm, believe climate change is taking us to hell in a handcart and who lobby for more urgent action on the issue - have resorted to the internet equivalent of taking banners onto the street in an attempt  to influence reporting of the issue.

It may be something that other journalists have seen before - I can only report that I have not. Always, in my experience, it has come from the side of "the debate" that Dr Romm abhors.

I am wondering, therefore, whether it does presage the start of something - whether it is now going to be routine for those of us who attempt to report on climate change objectively to be on the receiving end of barrages of critical mail, stimulated by bloggers with a definable agenda, whenever we write something that does not tally with their agenda.

What about scientists? If researchers publish papers on climate change that do not include cataclysmic warnings of where the world is heading, will they receive the same treatment?

Anyone who shares Dr Romm's views should, I suggest, be hoping this is not the case. As I have asked before in relation to pressure from the "sceptical" camp, what makes anyone think that organised abuse is an effective lobbying tactic?

Rather, it takes us further down the spiral of confrontation, where no-one listens to anyone with an opposing point of view, where every word has to be weighed for ideological purity rather than accuracy, and where free and effective discourse becomes impossible.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 5:51pm on 22 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Richard your email address IS on the botttom of your articles.

    This should be on topic...

    Here is an example of organised group of Pro-catastrophic man made global warming activits targeting, sceptical journalistts, newspapers and blogs..

    A look at the comments of the articles targeted demonstrates abusive and
    intolerant behavior by these people, especially their websites, DENIARS, Halls of Shame, etc

    The fact that BRITISH MP's journalists, and MEP's are associated with this is in my minds unacceptable as well..

    As this is a little more 'homegrown' perhaps the BBC would like to take a look at what is happening in their own backyard - ie Britain (British Broadcasting Corporation)

    George Monbiot is Honouray President of the Campaign AGAINST Climate Change..

    Whose activists receive Sceptics Alerts...
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/19/skeptic-alerts.html

    It is interesting to NOTE that over 80% of those alerts I have received since the Bishop Hill Sceptic Alert article was written, are for articles written by Christopher Booker and James Delingpole in the Telegraph -

    OVER 80% !!! (that makes it personal, in my opinion, to someone at CACC)

    The Guardian's Comment is Free has for years been perceived as routinely deleting sceptical comments (see earlier article at Bishop Hill and else where) George is at least partially aware that it goes on for his articles, and has said he wants an open thread.

    But George 'apparently' has no problem with what I would perceive as the CACC activists 'trolling' Bookers and Delingpole comments at the Telegraph..

    Over 80% makes it sound personal to me (no Watts up, Bishop Hill blog alerts, very few other newspapers)
    Just Deleingpole and Booker, and The Telegarph, the main target of CACC

    The Campaign Against Climate Change have their own Sceptic HALLS of Shame
    http://www.campaigncc.org/hallofshame

    Booker and Delingpole are in there, along with other elected politicians and scientists.

    Is George going to deny all knowledge of this, or does he still condone it..

    I found out about Skeptic Alerts by chance as a commentor at Delingpoles blog invited James to a CACC meeting, I had a browse at the CACC website and found it..

    I was previoulsy for months -post climategate - surprised at the shear number of 'troll' like coments in the Telegraph articles, one commentor the Telegrpah allowed to be outed was a Media management professional with Guardian AND Telegraph clients)

    I emailed Bishop Hill, and as he was a bit busy, he suggested that I write it up:
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/19/skeptic-alerts.html


    So that is why my sympathies lie with James Delinpole, (even though he can go a bit over the top at times, I can see why he has his opinion of the Guardian and George Monbiot, that the expressed at Bishop Hill)

    Pro- CAGW - Comments are allowed at the telegraph

    Should these activities, be something that these MP's be involved with..
    http://www.campaigncc.org/hallofshame
    http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384

    especially Caroline Lucas (1st ever UK Green MP)
    http://www.campaigncc.org/whoweare

    Is their any sort of journalistic code, ( I imagine Delingpole, Booker and the Telegraph, should consider writing to the CACC organisers, or maybe George will/can stop this, or those MP's)

    I tried to post this commemnt into the Guardian, the DELETED it.
    I can of course forward all those sceptic alerts to anyone (richard, the BBC) that wants them. (to verify the percentage)

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 5:56pm on 22 Sep 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "As I have asked before in relation to pressure from the "sceptical" camp, what makes anyone think that organised abuse is an effective lobbying tactic?"

    What makes you think sceptics are more "organized" or "abusive" than anyone else, apart from the fact that they disagree with you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 6:17pm on 22 Sep 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Richard. Stick to what you whole-heartedly believe in. If you get grief in your emails, get someone else to read and grade them. You are the journalist who encourages thought and debate about science and most of us appreciate your contributions. The alternative is a big blank nothing where none can have a say and new learning would be reduced to a mere trickle. What a truly miserable state of affairs that would be. I am sure Dr Romm means well but he is not the only scientist in your journalistic sea.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 6:44pm on 22 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Richard may I explain why I think this has happened, until recently the 'warmista' side as you call it, has perceived the BBC to be culurally pro CAGW or AGW and a safe media 'AGW consensus' pair of hands...

    I think anyone who watched the pre-Copenhagen BBC media coverage would agree with this.

    Something many people, me included would agree. The BBC seem oblivious, it is a cultural thing...

    Rember in the Climategate emails, Michael Mann, of Al Gore's inconvenient truth ' hockey stick graph, founding memebr of the PRO man made website, you quote often - RealClimate....

    His first thought, after reaading Paul Hudson's article - whatever happened to Global Warming....

    What was his frist thought, it wasto contact Richard Black at the BBC, as he does a good job..

    (I could quote the email directly, or even link to it, but I;m sure the BBC couldmange it themselves... They DId investigatethe emails after all, didn't they?)


    So, evidence that the percetption from the PRO-AGW side, was that the BBC was a gatekeeper on AGW consensus....

    Thus, they are likely to turn quite nasty....

    (ie Roger Harrabin's - Al Gore experience)

    CAGW Extremists (and the use of deniar by them) show how extreme they ALLWAYS were....

    No abuse by anyone should be tolerated, or acceptable, howver CRITICISM is perceive by some as abuse... try to ignore, REPORT any abuse, but please try to listen to criticism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 7:54pm on 22 Sep 2010, Jack Savage wrote:

    Expect some "advice" from Jo Abbess next.
    I am surprised that you are surprised. Look at the opprobrium heaped upon George Monbiot and Judith Curry when they deviated from the party line.
    Having said that,now it would appear that you can not only be castigated for what you say, but for what you do not say. That is new!
    You really ought to read the comments section to Joe Romm's article. I find it hilarious that you, of all people, should be the subject of such extraordinary bile.
    You will have to do penance...oh yes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 7:58pm on 22 Sep 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Richard Black.

    "At least, that is the surface complaint; what my omission hides, he hints heavily, is an agenda aimed at downplaying the impacts of humanity's greenhouse gas emissions."

    since we're all human we are all driven by our motivations, which are filtered by knowledge and perception. there was a post some time ago on this blog where you were accused of being biased and, for the life of me, I cannot understand how you, or any human, could be totally unbiased. are we expected to be machine-like?

    fwiw though, I think that your reporting is, on the whole, balanced, that is, you give what I perceive to be a fair account on the issues. (and the many varied comments to each post should support this opinon)

    I second sensibleoldgrannie's #3 -- just keep reporting on our shared environment and human impacts as you see it (amazing enough that the BBC does give you so much leeway) and leave the politicking to those who earn their living that way.

    btw, what's with the 'new style' of moderation which seems close every post prematurely?

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 8:19pm on 22 Sep 2010, JeremyP wrote:

    No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 8:26pm on 22 Sep 2010, LiKW wrote:

    I can assure you Richard that what you are experiencing is not new. Its just that previously, you haven't experienced it as you were seen to be on-message. The reality is that extremists such as this exist on both sides.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 9:14pm on 22 Sep 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    LiKW #8 wrote:

    I can assure you Richard that what you are experiencing is not new. Its just that previously, you haven't experienced it as you were seen to be on-message. The reality is that extremists such as this exist on both sides.

    Maybe I've misunderstood something, but isn't Richard Black a journalist -- in other words a public figure? And aren't "extremists" generally understood to be people who kill innocent, non-involved people by blowing up buses, buildings, etc.?

    People who write emails to -- or blogs about -- people they disagree with are possibly rude, disagreeable, at a stretch even vaguely threatening, in which case the law can be invoked.

    But to have a hissy-fit and use words like 'intolerant' and 'extremist' are just plain silly. Grow up. GROW UP!

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 9:19pm on 22 Sep 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Question for Richard Black:

    You use the word 'intolerance'.

    We seem to agree that toleration is a virtue, but what do you think the word 'intolerance' means?

    I'm asking about the concept of intolerance here, not just the word, in case the usual "Bowman dictionary" people who haven't grasped the connection between words and concepts are about to weigh in.

    I can tell you what I think it means, if you're interested.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 9:22pm on 22 Sep 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    You already said that in a previous comment.

    By the way, I'm taking a movie here of BBC scripting, with an eye on taking legal action.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 10:08pm on 22 Sep 2010, franksw wrote:

    You say

    I have written before of the orchestrated villification that comes the way of climate scientists from some people and organisations who are unconvinced of the case for human-induced climate change..........This week, for the first time, I am seeing the same pattern from their opponents."



    As someone who only picked up on the climate issue last year and still reads both sides of the debate I can tell you that up until sometime this year the the villification and filth that those who disagreed with the "concensus" view had to put up with was nothing short of disgusting.

    To find out more of the underlying science rather than just "how to save the planet"I bought Ian Plimers book last year (remember last year, books opposing the consensus view were so poisonous that as with heaven and Earth they could not get a mainstream publisher). So comprehensive is the pararagraph by paragraph "villification" on his book by so many people on the internet that I have often found it easier to google a phrase rather than use his index to look something up.

    Now for the first time it appears you have crossed the line and are finding out what those who are sceptical of the "oficial" view have had to put up with for many years. Perhaps it is no suprise that sceptics have learnt to respond in the manner that they have been treated.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 10:29pm on 22 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    This is NOT NEW behaviour form these people, Richard it stretches all credibility to suggest that, you must surely know it, or do you live in such a small closed 'consensus' circle. Sceptics have received such treatment for years.. It might be new to you, having had this experience.......

    And it is from the top, and the mainstream that these activist get their 'guidance' about acceptable behaviour.

    Roger Harrabin said this of Al Gore 3 years ago, following Roger asking questions that Al Gore did not like.

    Roger Harabin:
    "And after the interview he [Al Gore] and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of climate-sceptic traitor."

    This from the man (Al Gore) that was Vice President, and whisker away form the full power of the USA presidency. If he can do this to a BBC journalist, who they usually treat very carefully, imagine what the 'lower ranks' might do/say.

    Pre Copenghagen, we had the UK Prime Minister and other Minsters of State, calling sceptics, 'Flat-Earthers' 'anti-science' 'deniars' and most worringly 'climate sabatouers'.

    Or we had '50 days to save the planet' then it all went quiet....

    The public could see the hype and no substance, why not the BBC..
    Why did the BBC not qestion this political behaviour, rants from 'Mugabe' and Chavez, at the conference might give a clue, all is not well.

    Tony Blair in his biography was very much against the use of deniar.
    As I know Roger Harrabin is..

    Why not speak out, challenge the rhetoric from the powerful.

    I imagine some people at the BBC read the Guardian a mains tream newspaper(some, a little joke) they cannot fail to miss, years of the vitriol, abuse, smears and innuendo poured onto sceptics, within the Guardians rants. I think George Monbiot was lnking sceptics as being as smart as 'holocaust denial'

    George Monbiot, who has a Deniar Hall of Shame photo section, and writes articles attacking sceptical journalists, condoned by the Guardian, a paper with an editorial policy on AGW. The BBC hsould balance this.

    Or has the BBC not witnessed, the many and frequent attacks on Christopher Booker, and James Delingpole, try asking them about the abuse they get from 'warmists', over years.

    If this is what the 'responsible politicians and media professionals have said and done, can you not imagine how the more extreme CAGW activists have been behaving...

    The BBC often quotes RealClimate...
    Just site search that site, for Steve Mcintyre, or the scientists namse, Lindzen Spencer, Carter, Pielke, Plimer, and others (some are merely 'lukewarm' for the abuse they have received for years..

    Or follow the Realclimate links to see the behaviour/comments made there.
    Or even simpler, look back at previous Romm articles to see how he and his followers treat 'sceptics'

    Most recently Professor Judith Curry, who is a 'consensus' respected scientist, who has been roundly abused by the Pro Agw blogs, like Real Climate, Deltoid, DeSmogBlog and many others..

    On her new blog she talk about doubt, she also agrees that AGW is still at the Hypothesis stage..

    Judith, then has been roundly 'abused', judgement questioned, merely for talking to 'sceptics.' For an example, from another RealClimate founder) William Connolley, who wrote, Judith Curry Jumps the Shark' on his blog Stoat, and then watched all the commentors pile in..

    Judith Curry (from her CV, google it for all her scientific honours)
    Professional Experience

    2002- Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,
    Georgia Institute of Technology
    1992-2002 Professor, University of Colorado-Boulder,
    Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
    Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
    Environmental Studies Program
    1989-1992 Associate Professor,
    Department of Meteorology, Penn State
    1986-1989 Assistant Professor,
    Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University
    1982-1986 Assistant Scientist,
    Department of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

    And the BBC wonder why many 'sceptical scientists' have not spoken up, the BBC have been part of the media climate that has allowed this.

    Have you been living in such an ivory tower that you are unaware of this behaviour, or turned a 'blind eye' when only sceptics have had this treatment, being treated with kid gloves as a 'tame' pro Agw journalist, happy to reproduce their 'alarmist' press releases.

    The BBC thinks itself impartial....

    yet:

    Fiona Fox - Director of the Science and Media Centre said on Newswatch.

    "On Climate change there has been a real change..
    People like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin[at the BBC], fighting internally to say we DON’T have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate story"

    The science and Media Centre have bbc representatives on the board.

    Why might you think that the 'sceptics' perceive the BBC to be anything but cheerleaders for the 'consensus'

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 10:41pm on 22 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    The BBC are perceived to be totally on message with AGW by the sceptics...

    For activists on the pro AGW side to criticise the BBC, just shows how extremely intollerant they are...

    ---An example of why the BBC is perceived as a media gatekeeper, ie keeping quiet on anthing that may damage a consensus view point, and highligting 'consensus view points..

    A comment from a commentor at Bishop Hill:
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/9/22/bbc-science-review.html#comments

    "If I had to identify the most outrageous example of CAGW bias or cover up I've seen on the BBC site it would have to be the way they broke the story of the Himalayan glaciers not melting by 2035, as had originally been asserted by the IPCC.

    If you remember, the story broke during preparations for the Copenhagen summit 7th-18th December 2009, to which the Beeb had already dedicated a whole sub-site to publish scare stories about tipping points and impending catastrophes. So where did they put this very good news story then when it appeared on 5th Dec 2009? Surely they gave it a place of prominence on the *dedicated* Copenhagen page, here??

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/default.stm


    We'll, I'll spare you having to guess. They outrageously decided to hide it in the "South Asia" section.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm

    We know that RICHARD BLACK reads this blog and certainly will be dropping in on this thread about his employer. So how about an *honest answer* to this most peculiar choice then, RICHARD?

    -------

    At the time there were teams of journalist running around the Himalyas, we had rprime time TV, reporting aboutthem disappeing. The IPCC saying voodo science. To the Indians OWN glaciologists who were saying it was rubbish, and known to be rubbish, yet apparently this was known prior to the 2007 IPCC report, and left in for effect!

    This caused not undue alarm, to 200 million people in the region, that depend on this for a source of water.

    The behaviour of the IPCC TO 'SQUASH' anything damaging, is actually more damaging 'possibly' than what is clearly not just a 'mistake'

    The BBC has a responsibilty, the BBC is not an advocate of 'policy'

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 10:43pm on 22 Sep 2010, johntherock wrote:

    Hi Richard,
    It'd be useful to discuss this in more depth. There was an email from me in your inbox a day or two ago. Please get in touch if you have a moment.

    All the best - John

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 10:50pm on 22 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 17. At 10:54pm on 22 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Dear Richard,

    I am deeply disappointed in your defensive tone and straw man arguments made in the above piece. Instead, how about you take Dr. Romm to task on each and every one of his critiques using facts and science in your defense? He supported his critique with facts. Please do the same.

    Romm, rightly called you on a number of issues in your piece. I am also incredibly disappointed to say (because I used to hold the BBC in very high regard) that I agree is his assessment that "Black’s entire message to readers seems to be that what’s happening now is unusual and scientists have overestimated the trends — when the reverse is true in both cases."

    You are NOT above critique Richard, and public critique of you work does not equate to 'strong arm tactics' as you allege. Good grief. And for the record, you provide your email address at the bottom of your articles.

    Some points.

    First, the Arctic is warming rapidly (and here I am referring to annual temperatures). Yet you failed to note what is driving that warming or note that the Arctic is warming twice the rate of the rest of the planet. You also failed to note contribution of the ice loss to polar amplification. The Arctic is the canary in the coal mine and you do nobody any favors by ignoring that fact, as inconvenient and awkward as the truth may be.

    Also, one does not have to set a record minimum in Arctic sea ice extent for there to be a concern. The trend in min. extent is clearly down, and this year's minimum is entirely consistent with the long-term downward trend. I wish that I could post a figure to demonstrate that. Anyhow, it now seems that 2010 is in a tie with 2008 in min. extent, some products even suggesting that the minimum this year was less than 2008.

    You also failed to note the dramatic loss of thick multi-year sea ice in the Arctic. That is, the loss of ice volume which IS at record lows, and that is yet another reason for concern.

    You claim in the piece that:

    "The last 12 months have been unusually warm globally - according to Nasa, the warmest in its 130-year record. This is partly down to El Nino conditions in the Pacific Ocean, which have the effect of raising temperatures globally."

    Correct, 2010 is probably going to be one of the warmest year's on record thus far, if not the warmest. And yes that is partly because of the El Nino (its impact on global temperatures does not explain their long-term trends though), but what is the other (significant) part Richard? Let us see, the sun? Nope we are just emerging from a deep solar minimum. Oh, how about skeptics' favorite, the PDO? No that is in deep negative territory. Oh, then how about increased radiative forcing from higher GHG concentrations? Well, yes, that certainly is a primary player. Rather odd then that you would forget to mention that fact.

    An then you say:

    "Researchers say projections of summer ice disappearing entirely within the next few years increasingly look wrong….But computer models projecting a disappearance very soon — 2013 was a date cited by one research group just a few years ago — seem to have been too extreme."

    You do not provide sources (poor form), so it makes it difficult to verify where you heard that. It is my understanding that the projection in question was made by one group in the USA (Professor Wieslaw Maslowski ) made back in December 2007 (and which was reported very well by your colleague Jonathan AMos), not to mention that the date was 2016 plus/minus three years, and that Maslowski said "could" be ice free. Why did you not bother contacting Dr. Maslowski?

    This is what Professor Wadhams from Cambridge had to say concerning the fate of Arctic sea ice.

    “In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040.”

    From the same article, this time quoting Dr. Serreze from NSIDC:

    “A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that’s what our models were telling us. But as we’ve seen, the models aren’t fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.

    “My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.”

    And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: “I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you’ve had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out.”

    These are telling testimonials from experts. The IPCC is certainly not predicting a largely ice free Arctic (in the late summer) before 2050. In fact there projections have been very conservative and Arctic sea ice mina of late have been close to what they projected them to be circa 2060. Things are not looking good.

    Scientists have had it up to 'here' with lazy and indifferent reporters mangling the science the last while. So you should not be surprised by their terseness and impatience with sloppy and ambiguous scientific reporting. Regardless of what some might claim, critique of your article has nothing to do with you being "on side or not" or being "on message or not", it has everything to do with you failing to get the facts right and reporting responsibly.

    The BBC continues to disappoint and underperform when reporting on climate science--even former BBC producer Mark Brayne has conceded that. I'm sad to say Richard that you have become part of the problem and not the solution. Can you please change that?

    Thank you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 10:59pm on 22 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

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

  • 19. At 11:08pm on 22 Sep 2010, fjpickett wrote:

    "Always, in my experience, it has come from the side of 'the debate' that Dr Romm abhors."

    Dr Romm and his followers have always been abusive to dissenters. Welcome to our world, Richard.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 11:13pm on 22 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

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

  • 21. At 11:27pm on 22 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

    F Pickett @19,

    "Dr Romm and his followers have always been abusive to dissenters."

    Wow, lots of rhetoric and no substance there. You convince none making unsubstantiated accusations. If you mean "dissenting" from acceptable journalistic standards, then yes I agree with that use of the term in this context.

    And please do not invoke the martyr complex. Richard is being help to account for sloppy journalism, nothing more.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 11:36pm on 22 Sep 2010, pigignorant wrote:

    I am disappointed at how the BBC has back-peddled on climate change this year. For example, the pieces today about how the Arctic is being divvied up for its oil reserves makes scarcely a mention of climate change, and then only as an implied positive factor!
    On the other hand Dr Romm has a habit of going up against just about everyone on all sides of the debate unless they share his own very tight definition of the problem and solution. He is a relentless "technofixer" and denies being an environmentalist. For example he spent weeks and weeks attacking and warring with the Breakthrough Institute (who are basicaly on his side but have a slightly different slant on the solution).
    I have posted comments many times over the last couple of years to ClimateProgress. Everything goes into premoderation, much of it gets chucked out and I have been barred for long periods several times. Usually this is because I mention concepts such as Jevons Paradox or The Tragedy of the Commons - both of which Joe fundamentally disagrees with (he is a physicist and does not seem to understand politics or economics very well).
    You can tell his blog comments are heavily modded because (a) there aren't many comments and (b) everyone agrees with him down to the last detail. I would ignore him if I were you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 11:43pm on 22 Sep 2010, Katabasis wrote:

    Richard, you dared to express the incorrect level of certainty on a forbidden area to have doubts and concerns. Romm and friends are only a hair away from calling you a "Denier" as a result.

    How does it feel?

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 11:55pm on 22 Sep 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Albatross #21.

    "Richard is being help to account for sloppy journalism, nothing more."

    but one only needs to look at posts like this to see that this is, well, stretching the truth.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 00:10am on 23 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Katabasis,

    You say "you dared to express the incorrect level of certainty on a forbidden area to have doubts and concerns"

    I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Uncertainty cuts both ways. Thus far, the uncertainty in Arctic sea ice has, as shown by the data, been skewed towards losing the ice faster, not slower than originally expected. Yet, Richard, cherry picked and then misrepresented one study which predicted an largely ice free Arctic in the summer (>80% loss from the 1979-2000 mean). Experts now believe that the Arctic will be largely ice free well before 2040. Not too long ago scientists thought it would be closer to 2100 before that happened. This all goes to show that we are in fact changing the climate system faster than stated in the "alarmist" IPCC.

    And for the record, as far as I can tell, Romm et al. have not called Richard a "denier", nor are they planning on doing so, b/c as far as I know, Richard understands that increasing GHG concentrations will warm the planet. So you too (like Barry and Richard) are arguing strawmen and engaging in rhetoric and not facts).

    Finally, are we to believe that only 'skeptics' and contrarians are permitted to critique reporters for poor reporting? Do not demonize people and scientists for critiquing shoddy reporting, especially when they back up their critique with facts.




    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 00:12am on 23 Sep 2010, mailmannz wrote:

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

  • 27. At 00:14am on 23 Sep 2010, Mr Tambourine Man wrote:

    Dear Richard,
    Albatross has already said much of what I wish to write, but here goes anyway.
    I commented via the BBC after said article to raise a number of points in a firm but polite manner. These were:
    * Your original article failed to make any mention of climate change (human caused or otherwise) being behind the long term trends of melting sea ice. This was a terrible ommission of the main clearly recognised cause. At my most charitable I would hope that you assumed all readers would link two and two together. At worst I would see this as misinforming the public.
    * Likewise your post attempted to portray scientists as unduly alarmist in their predictions about the rate of Arctic decline. This was because you inferred that individual reports at one extreme of predictions were the mainstream view. There was no mention that the real mainstream view of the IPCC was that it would not be until the end of this century that we would see an ice-free Arctic in summer. You were thus setting up a straw man by this. If you had linked the current melting to the mainstream IPCC predictions then your story would have been about global warming in the Arctic happening much faster than predicted. But that would not have fitted what seemed to be your narrative about scientific alarmism.
    * Finally your original post made very little mention of Arctic sea ice volume and only included statistics for its 2-dimensional area/extent. I was disappointed that you did not include all the facts in this regard. Not least because climate change 'sceptics' frequently mislead the public by claiming sea ice is recovering when the bigger picture (in 3 dimensions) shows continued catastrophic decline. (Recent statistics from the National Snow and Ice Data Center suggest that we are currently at the lowest volume for Sea Ice Volume). In future I would hope that the BBC would report sea ice volume as well as sea ice are/extent to provide the public with the best representation of the science.
    Rather than answering these points as I hoped, you chose to shoot the messenger and drift towards self-pity. Having taken the time to reiterate the original and genuine scientific concerns that many had about your article I would hope to see you address these real issues.
    Finally, I sincerely hope that people who shared my objections did not attack you in a malicious way via your BBC email account. That, at least we can agree on, would be totally wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 00:20am on 23 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

    JR @24,

    I twice tried to follow your link and both times explorer crashed on me. From what I could tell before it crashed, the article had nothing to do with Richard's recent flawed piece on the Arctic sea ice which is in contention here.

    If you want to try and defend Richard or make a relevant point please do so.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 00:36am on 23 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Richard,

    FWIW, I do think that you (mostly) do a pretty good job when reporting on the climate science. The ire that you draw from the conspiracy theorists and anti-science brigade who frequently post here is evidence of that.

    But, when you do happen to err, and someone calls you on it using facts, then please do not see it as you being thrown to the wolves.

    Scientists are perhaps a little over-sensitive when it comes to their work being mis-represented, but that is hardly surprising especially after the goings on in recent years. So please keep that in mind. There is no unruly mob out to get you, just the pursuit of the highest journalists standards and factual correctness.






    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 00:48am on 23 Sep 2010, Mr Tambourine Man wrote:

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

  • 31. At 01:00am on 23 Sep 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Albatross #28.

    sorry to hear that your IE crashed, the link works for me (tried it).

    ok, so there is one article out of many dozens where RB can be 'accused' of failing to state the obvious (since it's been debated to death), and immediately the debate focusses on that one article, disregarding (because it's expedient to do so?) the body of his work.

    I find this kind of 'tactics' deplorable because it amounts to character assassination, which is why I linked to his "Arctic roots of 'upside-down' weather" (from January). that post is a fine example (IMO) of balanced writing on the issue, which, I'd hoped, would illustrate the point, ie the unfairness of the 'sloppy journalism' thing.

    as I said, it's only one article of many.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 01:12am on 23 Sep 2010, dumbciscokid wrote:

    Mr Black

    Did you set out to parody yourself ?

    Have you seen the vilification meted out on sites such as RealClimate to anyone who challenges the orthodoxy you espouse ?

    Can you not see how civil and reasonable the discussions are on sites such as BishopHill in the UK, or WattsUpWithThat, or the new site by Dr Judith Curry compared to the Warmist sites ? Or do you only read one side of the argument ?

    You insult BBC licence-payers, sir, to suggest that we who think you are in the tank for one side of the debate are - en masse - deluded and offensive.

    There is nothing wrong with being concerned about the environment. That is fine by me. But you have NIL scientific qualification to assume that you are right on scientific matters, and that us hoi polloi are wrong. The Peter Principle seems to apply here.

    ..................

    But obviously my view is worth nothing - you slur me as well as others as a "denier". The sort of tag that cheapskates use.

    ...................

    I must confess - I have only an M.Sc. (What do you have, by the way ?)

    And I of course I get paid gazillions by Big Oil. Because I am part of some sort of mob attack.

    Plus as I am nearly 70, with a touch of experience of media frenzies and groupthink, I must be getting crotchedy about being preached at by people like you and Roger Harrabin - whose wages we are forced to pay.

    ................


    Here are one or two simple questions - given that you exude expertise.

    Was there are Medieval Warming Period - or is that an urban myth ?

    Were the late 1990s truly an unprecedented period of temperature increase - or was the RATE of increase matched by several other decades even in the last 100 years or so ? (Please check out what Phil Jones has said.

    If things were NOT unprecedented - why all the panic ?

    Do you read closely any of the counter-case ?


    Finally have you ever apologised for any of the panic sob-stories for which you are famous ? Or notorious ?

    I have never sent anything abusive to you, I regret it if others have. But I know in my elderly bones that you frankly do not know what you are talking about, that for years you have been riding a wave of spurious alarmism.

    And I rue the day the BBC gave people such as you and Harrabin such a leading propaganda position on matters that you are scientifically unqualified to judge.



    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 01:31am on 23 Sep 2010, Sparklet wrote:

    "Journalists, including your humble correspondent, receive our fair share too.
    This week, for the first time, I am seeing the same pattern from their opponents."

    Richard, I'm sorry but I find this very difficult to believe. Are you really saying you were unaware of the pressure put on your colleague Roger Harrabin by Jo Abbess as described here

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/08/bbc_blog_bully/

    or of the CRU emails where you were mentioned by name when Mann & his clique were expressing their concern about Paul Hudson's article "What happened to Global Warming"

    "Michael Mann wrote:

    extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
    We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?

    mike "


    Was this then the only occasion that Michael Mann asked "What's up here"? and were you not the colleague who then passed this chain of mails onto Paul Hudson?

    The same chain of links, by the way, where Kevin Trenberth stated

    "Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that herein Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow...The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't...but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

    {Any reader wanting to find the source need only copy the above phrase onto google - I would normally give the link but cannot sure that the BBC would publish it, such posts have been censored before.)

    And have you not actually read the CRU mails where it was quite apparent that scientists were using their status to prevent other scientists being published,

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

    something you denied was ever happening back in your October blog on BBC Climate Coverage

    Richard Black - (comment 602)
    ""The difficulties sceptics are experiencing in getting their views published in peer-reviewed journals", Sparklet? I don't think so; quite apart from the fact that peer-reviewed journals are principally there to publish scientific advances, not views."

    Or how scientist Judith Curry was treated when she dared to express concern at the content of the CRU mails.

    Anyone who has visited any of the science blogs such as Real Climate, Climate Audit, WUWT or indeed read George Monbiots blog in the Guardian will know that what you describe is a gross distortion of the truth. Richard I am afraid it is you who are in 'denial' and it is far more common for sceptics to be on the receiving end of the bile and opprobrium.




    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 01:45am on 23 Sep 2010, BlueRock wrote:

    > He then gives my email address...

    Your email address was attached to the article for all to see. Was it not published to allow people to give you feedback?

    > ...those who, like Dr Romm, believe climate change is taking us to hell in a handcart and who lobby for more urgent action on the issue...

    Depending on your definition of "hell in a handcart", the people with similar views to Joe Romm include near-100% of the world's expert climate scientists - because that is where Romm gets his science.

    I note that you did not attempt to refute any of the substantive criticism Romm levelled at your piece on the Arctic ice melt.

    That's a shame, because this hand-wringing nonsense about perceived civility or lack of it is simply a distraction from the indisputable science that human activity is heating the planet, melting sea ice and glaciers, acidifying the oceans, increasing droughts and intensifying storms.

    The BBC - and Richard Black - are failing in their duty to communicate this unequivocal science to the public.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 02:04am on 23 Sep 2010, BlueRock wrote:

    P.S. Will Black now write a fresh piece to bring some clarity to the first as new information has since come in:

    NSIDC director: “The volume of ice left in the Arctic likely reached the lowest ever level this month. I stand by my previous statements that the Arctic summer sea ice cover is in a death spiral. It's not going to recover."

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/22/nsidc-serreze-arctic-sea-ice-volume-record-low-death-spiral/

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 02:05am on 23 Sep 2010, dumbciscokid wrote:

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

  • 37. At 03:16am on 23 Sep 2010, Tom Forrester-Paton wrote:

    Richard you strain credulity when you express surprise at the hysterical, ad hominem abuse heaped by warmists on anyone who deviates from the catstrophe narrative. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I suppose someone who has (as the CRU emails attest) been seen by the high priesthood as a safe pair of hands means that you will have done little hitherto to attract this sort of treatment yourself, but it beggars belief that someone with your interests can have failed to notice that the boot has well and truly been on the other foot for decades. Ever since, in fact, a few lone voices spoke out at the seamless transition, back in the 80s, from global cooling to global warming, without any diminution in faith in the modelling methods that arrived at these strikingly, erm, contrasting scenarios, anyone who cast doubt on the prevailing narrative of doom has been vilified.

    As a journo, you had the opportunity - some would say the responsibility - to cry foul, but chose not to. Enjoy the result. And for goodness' sake, now that you can no longer cling to the "nice people fret about CAGW and nasty people don't" myth, get out of the echo chamber and do some proper investigative journalism for a change, paying due regard to the null hypothesis, that essential stimulus to scientific enquiry to which warmists appear strangers. Bishop Hill's a good place to start, and Judith Curry's new site shows promise. And don't worry about Romm - he's a busted flush.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 03:30am on 23 Sep 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    .
    Richard,
    .
    It's really good to see you back in harness after a good holiday break.
    I can tell that others have been missing you and have stored up lots of ammunition to throw in your direction whilst you were away - viz. the average length of the postings.
    .
    I appreciate that, whatever your scientific CV, you are operating here as a BLOG writer, not even as a journalist. The constraints imposed by brevity & colloquial representation, and the requirement of giving 'openings' for posters to pick up on, all leave you superficially open to criticism. Rise above it; you're currently an environmental journalist, not a Nobel Prize winning climate scientist.
    .
    Occasionally the posters produce 'really good stuff' in argument for or against a proposition (it does tend to be a bit polarised); one must hope that when the opinion-formers (scientists, politicians, etc) pick up on this 'really good stuff', they incorporate it and modify accordingly. The real problem for the opinion-formers is being able to distinguish the gems from the crap. This is where you can be rather useful..... and I really hope you do pass-on the 'good stuff'.
    .
    Geoff.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 03:43am on 23 Sep 2010, spectrum wrote:

    Corporate journalists must be really honest, they disagree with each other. Joe Romm has too much integrity, that's the problem. Even if carbon trading is the biggest financial scam in human history, corporate journalists are really cool. They get paid, but they are really, really true to themselves. Like Batman and Spiderman. Joe Romm is actually more honest than Batman. He's passionate about carbon trading.

    Even the most wonderful scientist in the world says it's a scam

    James Hansen in the Guardian.

    Governments today, instead, talk of "cap-and-trade with offsets", a system rigged by big banks and fossil fuel interests. Cap-and-trade invites corruption. Worse, it is ineffectual, assuring continued fossil fuel addiction to the last drop and environmental catastrophe.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/aug/26/james-hansen-climate-change?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 05:47am on 23 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

    JR @31,

    I thought that it was obvious my post (and from Romm's) that the critique concerns ONE article that Black has written on the Arctic sea ice which contained some glaring errors and omissions.

    I certainly was not generalizing and writing off Richard, as some of the contrarians here seem to be doing.


    Richard,
    Have have to concur with Geoff Ward at 38. Reading many of the posts here is really disturbing-- so many unsubstantiated attacks and allegations, so much rhetoric, so many conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks against climate scientists. It really is not a pleasant environment, nor one conducive to intellectual discussion or healthy debate. Rather it seems to be an outlet for those disinterested in the science and who have an axe to grind against the UN and climate scientists. Perhaps the contrarians and "skeptics" prefer it that way, but it is going to keep away people who are genuinely interested in more meaningful and fact-based discussion. Please think about that. I'm certainly glad that it is you and not I who has to contend with this mess.

    One last comment before I sign off. Please do not make the mistake of making sweeping generalizations and lumping all we 'warmists' into one category. You did exactly that when you say "'Warmist' attack smacks of 'skeptical' intolerance. ONE blogger (rightly) took issue with you concerning problems in ONE of your articles, that is most definitely not equivalent to the entire cadre of climate scientists being intolerant of all your articles. Further, that constructive critique certainly also does not equivalent to intolerance by all 'warmists'. Could we please have a little less drama and rhetoric please and more rigor when speaking to the science?

    Anyhow, hopefully you and Dr. Romm can resolve this issue amicably. On that note, I look forward to reading an article from you on the worrisome state of the Arctic sea ice volume.

    All the best,
    Albatross

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 07:01am on 23 Sep 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    "I'm shocked" Richard says, as they said in Casablanca.

    Barry Woods, at #13 and other posts, sums it up.

    As soon as the AGW gang started screaming that the debate was over, and deriding anyone who questioned their orthodoxy as deniers, and channeling funds and publishing opportunities only to true believers, it was obvious that this was not a scientific debate but rather a political stampeding. Mob or consensus, no difference in this case.

    So now even you, Richard, must be starting to get it. People with sincere concerns about the environment have been betrayed and manipulated, and the whole environmental movement has been hijacked by people with other agendas.

    P.S. Albatross - "Dr Romm" Funny. Are we supposed to be impressed by "dr"? Just read what he writes. Or read what Dr Goebbels wrote.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 07:13am on 23 Sep 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #29.Albatross wrote:

    "Richard,

    FWIW, I do think that you (mostly) do a pretty good job when reporting on the climate science. The ire that you draw from the conspiracy theorists and anti-science brigade who frequently post here is evidence of that."

    So. Its "climate science" versus "conspiracy theorists and anti-science brigade."

    "Dr" Romm couldn't have said it "better."

    And this comment nicely illustrates this article, and the rational and reasonable debate that has NOT been happening.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 07:16am on 23 Sep 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #29.Albatross wrote:

    "Richard,

    FWIW, I do think that you (mostly) do a pretty good job when reporting on the climate science. The ire that you draw from the conspiracy theorists and anti-science brigade who frequently post here is evidence of that."

    So. Its "climate science" versus "conspiracy theorists and anti-science brigade."

    This comment is certainly on topic here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 07:43am on 23 Sep 2010, PAWB46 wrote:

    Richard

    Welcome to the real world. For years you have called us scientists who don't accept the AGW hypothesis "deniers". Now you are experiencing a mild form of the abuse we have been subjected to for years (from flat-earth Gordon Brown, through journalists such as you, NGOs, right the way down to the likes of Jo Abbess).

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 08:09am on 23 Sep 2010, Alex Cull wrote:

    Richard Black, re Joe Romm's invitation to his readers to complain en masse: "Always, in my experience, it has come from the side of "the debate" that Dr Romm abhors." So perhaps the specific form this attack has taken is something new.

    However, the climate-debate vitriol has in recent years, I have noticed, generally been strongest and nastiest when aimed at those who tend towards the AGW-proponent end of the spectrum but who are either "lukewarmers", or who have found fault with the way climate science has been carried out, or like yourself, Richard, who are at least taking tentative steps now towards some sort of objectivity in the reporting of climate matters. Jack Savage mentions George Monbiot and Judith Curry; other targets, I think would include Bjorn Lomborg and Roger Pielke Jnr. And much of the vitriol, though of course not all of it, has been thrown at them from the "warmist" camp.

    If the next decade is anything like the last one, climate-wise, I think we will start to hear much more about the uncertainties of climate science, the mooting of alternatives to radical decarbonisation and the toning down of catastrophist rhetoric in the mainstream media. However, a new emphasis on reporting the uncertainties might well begin to incur a backlash from those whose position is that of absolute certainty and who will brook no deviation. Joe Romm's article inviting others to criticise the "British Petroleum Broadcasting Corporation", as some of his more excited supporters call it, will probably not be the last of its kind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 08:14am on 23 Sep 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    On behalf of all the people who are sceptical of AGW, who have had to endure the insults, derogatory remarks and accusations from other people who post on this blog, for all the years that you and the moderators have allowed the likes of ManySummits etc doubting our sanity, inferring we have mental disorders and disturbed minds, I have to say, Richard, I don't have an ounce of sympathy for you.

    In fact, I recall, requesting an apology from you when you unnecessarily quoted an unnamed source As one ex-scientist and now climate action advocate put it to me rather caustically a while back: "I've been debating the science with them for years, but recently I realised we shouldn't be talking about the science but about something unpleasant that happened in their childhood".

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html#P89909231

    Welcome to our world, Richard

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 08:42am on 23 Sep 2010, sanity4all wrote:

    Richard,

    Sympathising with your point of view, unfortunately, the first reporting of Climate change was carried out in that 'scaremongering' way many years ago and many scientists or not, were villified for being objective and asking questions.

    Not surprising then, 'that what goes around, comes around'

    Surprised though that Dr Romm is a 'physicist'. If his actions and motivations are as you mention, it undermines the definition of a 'true Physicist' - in essence to be 'analytical and question everything and take nothing as fact'.

    Unfortunately, the 'two camps' you mention are now polarised (North or South? - excuse the pun) beyond reconciliation.

    The only way forward is, like in the Organic Foods debate, reveal and remove the vast commercial, political and financial 'controls' behind the 'raging arguments' - highlight whose grant/job/investments/careers is/are at risk?

    At the end of the day, no two human beings can or ever will agree on everything - that would be too much to hope for - they could eventually compromise, but none of us live that long!

    Advice - turn a deaf ear. Politics blows like the wind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 08:51am on 23 Sep 2010, jon112dk wrote:

    "What about scientists? If researchers publish papers on climate change that do not include cataclysmic warnings of where the world is heading, will they receive the same treatment?"
    ==============================================

    Yes indeed - an issue I think the climate realists have raised for some time.

    How can you trust the research in a climate of fear which approaches religious or totalitarian zeal? Could a researcher, who's livelyhood depends on the next publication and the next research grant, publish an article contrary to the acceptable view?

    Does this skew the primary research?

    Or does it just influence the reviews and briefing documents into 'dodgy dossiers' intended to influence rather than critically evaluate? The climategate revelations demonstrate that this is the minimum which is occuring.

    Hard to tell but I think people need to continue as they are now - keeping their wits about them.


    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 09:03am on 23 Sep 2010, OPatrick wrote:

    Richard, as with Mr Tambourine Man I have little to add to Albatross's detailed contributions here.

    You were criticised and those criticisms have been justified. If you don't agree with those justifications fair enough, but please do think about them. You are in a position of significant influence on the overriding issue facing humanity, your words cannot be taken lightly.

    If your reports are misleading you must expect them to be challenged, even if your other reporting is in the main good on this issue. Do you think it is unreasonable for anyone who recognises the importance of climate change to be challenging poor reporting when they find it? (And it is very easy to find poor reporting, that the BBC is one of the best examples of how reporting should be done makes it all the more important to challenge it when objectivity appears to be missing.)

    I also question the implication that the complaints you received were simply parroting Joe Romm's own criticisms. I know there are many people who are quite capable of, and practised at, independently identifying the common misconceptions and misinformation in climate science reporting. My biggest concerns with your article were the misleading implications of exaggerated predictions of Arctic sea ice melt and the failure to mention that the current record warming was caused by El Nino *on top of* a continuing warming trend. I did not need Romm to tell me that these were misleading.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 09:08am on 23 Sep 2010, fjpickett wrote:

    Albatross (21)

    "Wow, lots of rhetoric and no substance there."

    You have been to Joe Romm's site, I take it? I'd offer an example of his abuse towards anyone who isn't a fellow-catastrophist, but it's difficult to choose...

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 09:12am on 23 Sep 2010, MrBe wrote:

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

  • 52. At 09:34am on 23 Sep 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

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

  • 53. At 09:49am on 23 Sep 2010, bandythebane wrote:

    Congratulations Richard. Your Arctic article was pretty much on the nail,both factual and balanced and without a trace of hype. Can we now hope that the rest of BBC environment reporting will now follow your example?

    Romm's attack on your failure to recognise the full significance of global warming trends as demomstrated by Arctic ice appears to depend heavily on the Giss figures on 2010 global temperatures.

    The trouble with this is that other temperature sources including UAH, RSS or even Hadcrut or NOAA are not in close agreement with Giss.

    I have certainly not trawled the Giss data to try to find out what is wrong with them, but I do know that Giss is under the control of James Hansen.

    Unfortunately while this remains so, even if the Giss data is immaculate, Hansen like Pachauri is now damaged goods and it is very hard to take anything he has a hand in at face value.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 10:26am on 23 Sep 2010, PAWB46 wrote:

    At 09:49am on 23 Sep 2010, bandythebane

    There are no thermometers in the Arctic. Hansen (GISS) extrapolates from land-based thermometers surrounding the Arctic. The thermometers he picks are all subject to human warming influences, hence he gets an artificial warming Arctic, to suit his alarmist agenda that the "ice is all melting".

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 10:37am on 23 Sep 2010, hotashes wrote:

    Richard,

    Think yourself lucky that you're not Lord Christopher Monckton! The attacks on him, from 'warmist' scientists, have become increasingly more coordinated

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 11:38am on 23 Sep 2010, johntherock wrote:

    #54:

    Couple of useful links to get you started:

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    In the meantime, I have the most entertaining vision of Jim Hansen with a class of undergrads strategically stationed in pairs around the fringes of the Arctic, one holding the thermometer, the other a portable hairdryer - making sure they thermometers give nice cosy readings!

    Once that job is complete, they can go on to use same hairdryers to help melt the ends off some glaciers ;)

    Cheers - John

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 11:45am on 23 Sep 2010, SR wrote:

    @54
    Playing devil's advocate here...what about the satellite pictures? Are a series of photographs taken from space not clear enough evidence that the arctic sea ice is generally melting? Does the satellite imagery have an agenda too? Have they been photoshopped to remove the white bits?

    @55
    Christopher Monkton makes ridiculous arguments. It would be difficult for a reasonable person to analyse what he says without it appearing like a co-ordinated attack on him.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 11:59am on 23 Sep 2010, pigignorant wrote:

    Wonder what my #21 did to deserve being hidden? Must have upset someone...

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 11:59am on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Richard, the 'warmists' are giving 'extra' abuse to you and the BBC because you are off 'consensus' message. Particulary because the BBC has been perceived as a safe 'consensus' pair of hands.

    Over the years this 'consensus' has been used to label anyone with questions as quacks or climate change deniars. Because if anyone actually scientific asks a question, the consensus crumbles. Thus little leaks in the dam must be plugged quickly.

    When the IPCC published in 2007, the lobby groups were very quick to say it did not go far enough and were quick to build up lots of alarmist imagary. The Inconvenient Truth was part of that...

    BBC - Roger Harrabin: The Heat and Light in Global Warming

    "I have spent much of the last two decades of my journalistic life warning about the potential dangers of climate change, but when I first watched Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth I felt a flutter of unease."

    "...but because in several points of the film, Mr Gore simply goes too far by asserting or implying facts that are contentious.

    This leaves the film open to attack by the ever-dwindling band of sceptics who do not want to accept that climate change is anything to do with humans, and indeed a successful attack is exactly what has happened in the UK.

    Because although Mr Justice Burton agreed in Wednesday's High Court ruling that An Inconvenient Truth is mainly based on consensus science, his judgement will be trumpeted more for finding that the film was studded with green "errors". "

    My thoughts:
    Most worringly, if Al Gore and his advocates can behave like this to an onside, passionately 'warmist BBC, and an acredited (ie protected) journalist like Roger, how would the rest of the warmist behave to sceptics.. (ie a member of the public, sceptical journalists/scientists)

    Roger Harrabin BBC:

    "And after the interview he and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of CLIMATE SCEPTIC TRAITOR.

    It is miserable when such a vastly important debate is reduced to this. The film and the High Court row are, though, products of their time.

    If the conservative IPPC forecasts are accurate our children may rue the years we spent squabbling over climate change rather than tackling it."


    My Thoughts:
    This is how even being slightly off 'consensus' was treated all thos years ago. Al Gore who famously will NOT take any public questions when he speak on these issues.

    How about asking/looking at the abuse Christoipher Landsea (IPCC) recieved, resigning because of Trenberth attributing hurricanes to man made global warming at an IPCC press conference, AGAINST the hurricane experts advice.. Look at the abuse he has received.

    Ask Professor Judith Curry all about that.

    Or Dr Vincent Gray, resigning inprotest of the IPCC lead authors ignoring uncertainties.

    Or Professor Lindzen of MIT, Or rofessors Spencer, Carter, Pielke,
    Professor PLimer, a geologist who knows a thing or 2 about paleo-climate (he is labeled a miner, thus biased - the fact that misses the 'warmists', is the mining industry, especially in China is BOOMING, chasing down all those rare earth metals in hybrid cars, and green technology, ruining those local environments. 4kg of Lithium in an averag small hybrid. As an Applied Chemsitry grd, lithium is nasty toxic metal, with all sorts of long term disposal issues, let alone the lithium mining process.

    As a BBC anlayst reporter, have you read those scientists work..

    IE the sea level expert, despairingly telling the Maldive they are NOT sinking. Nor are they likely to, it is GOOD news.
    (google The Greatest Lie ever told - sea level)

    The consensus has used alarmist imagary,Tuvalu, islands sinking..

    You think that when the BBC Reports: Islands NOT Sinking but Growing.

    That it would be good news, includes Tuvalu, in fact coral island grow/rise with sea level, they were never at risk, even as the sea levels have not risen..

    Darwin identified this fromation of Coral Reef over a 150 years ago..
    The IPCC seem to have missed this. These island have real man made environmental issues, as listed in Working Group 1. Have you read Working Group 1, or just the summary for policy makers.

    Professor Kelly, (in the enquiries) commented, how about uncertainties, the humbleness of the scientists, recognising the unknown, were in Working Group 1. He asked how this turned into the certainties and highly confident, in the other reports. As HAVE THE IAC.

    Another piece of alarmism, the atlantic conveyor (gulf stream) will shut down, Widely publicised, used/still used by all the Lobby groups, (greenpeaces', wwf, etc)thus northern europe/UK will freeze.

    A few months ago, buried away on the BBC website, very lacklustre coverage, given the 'fears'.
    Scientist having done some research, say actually no, Gulf Stream as strong as ever, just a bit of natural variability..

    Have the BBC read:

    'The Hockey Stick Illusion' A W Montford (they have had him on Newswatch (aka Bishop Hill)

    'Climategate: the crutape letters' Mosher Fuller, all the emails put into context, which demolish the 'hockey stick 'team' at Real Climate.

    Has the BBC actually read recent books by professors Carter, Spencer, Plimer, Pielke and many many more sceptical SCIENTISTS (brave ones, just lukewarm, they support/accept AGW hypothesis, not the catastrophic messages)

    The BBC are perceived by many secptics as having been media gatekeeper of the AGW 'consensus' message. That is a strong criticism that demands something to back it up...

    My example:


    A BBC article recently quoted a UK MP, reinforcing a 'consensus' message

    "The vast majority of scientists round the world accept that climate
    change is a critically important issue and it is almost always non-scientists who want to argue about that”

    Andrew Miller MP
    Chair, HoC Science & Technology Committee"

    Thus are those certain Profeesor's above, NON-SCIENTISTS.
    or are:

    'sceptical' scientists - BAD, 'warmist' scientists - GOOD

    If the BBC is going to quote Miller, with statements like that.
    Why not quote Graham Stringer another MP on the SAME panel as Miller, who says this of the science:

    "That just is NOT science, BUT literature"

    On Briffa (Climate Resaerch Unit, UEA, being unable to reproduce his own
    results. A damming as possible quote on the state of CRU/IPCC 'science.
    I would think given Briffa's role at the IPCC and the heavy involvement of CRU staff in the IPCC, and that Graham Stringer's (MP) views would be relevant and of interest to the general public and show balance on this
    issue and should HAVE been reported by the BBC

    ESPECIALLY, as GRAHAM STRINGER MP, has the STRONGEST scientifc qualifications of anyone on that Parliamentary select commitee.

    Graham Stringer:
    "Everybody on the [House of Commons Science and Technology] Committee last time asked that there be no gaps between our report, and the Muir Russell report and the Oxburgh Report - but there are huge gaps. The Muir Russell people and the Oxburgh people didn't talk to each other, so there were bound to be gaps. We are left with the science left unlooked at. --Graham Stringer MP, The Register, 10 September 2010


    The lobby groups are saying the enquiries - BACKED the science.

    Graham Stringer, and reported numerous places elsewhere, have said the science was NOT looked at.

    "Graham Stringer says the practices exposed at CRU undermine the
    scientific value of paleoclimatology, in which CRU is a world leader.
    "When I asked Oxburgh if [Keith] Briffa [CRU academic] could reproduce his own results, he said in lots of cases he couldn't. "That just isn't
    science. It's literature. If somebody can't reproduce their own results,
    and nobody else can, then what is that work doing in the scientific
    journals?" Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 10 September 20


    My Thoughts:
    Thus the BBC quotes an MP supporting the consensus that demands more
    nuclear to solve the 'perceived' problem of CO2. Yet another MP on the
    same committe has large doubts about the science of key scientists at the heart of the IPCC/CRU

    So, my thoughts again, that can be perceived as BBC media consensus gatekeeping

    Professor Kelly, -a member of one of the enquiies.
    Notes obtained under FOIA (is that what the BBC should be doing)

    Took exception to the outputs of 'computer runs' being called experiments. Going against the scientific principle..

    Reported in Detail, at Climate Audit and Bishop Hill (the BBC does read them 'occasionally' ?) These blogs seem to have saved the BBC time and effort, pursuing FOI requests, in an attempt to get at the truth? (more humour)


    Possibly if the BBC starts to get a lot of criticism, from both extreme sides of an extremely 'tribal' debate' then they are journalistically in the right place.........

    Allowing more moderate scientists and the general public (lukewarm to AGW) to raise their heads and participate in the debate. It is not going to go away, the political reality of that is clear, even to George Monbiot in a very recent article.

    Ie Michael Mann (IPCC 'hockey stick' 'The inconvenient truth' graph)contacting the BBC to see what is going on, when BBC's Paul Hudson - wrote Whatever Happenind to Global Warming.

    Paul was talking about real scientific thoeries by real scientists (solar) thus percieved as a damaging to the 'consensus message'.
    Michael also said they were going to do something about it at RealClimate (long perceieved as a PR site for a SMALL group of IPCC climate scientists)

    Michael NMann's first thought was to contact Richard Black.....

    When I read that nearly a year ago, might I have reason to begin to question the BBC's role as a media consensus gatekeper. Did Climate Audit, Anthony Watts, Lindzen, etc have that access, or more importantly relationship?!

    My thoughts, had the BBC been acting as AGW 'consensus' media gatekeeper, much like the scientists in the emails, involvement in peer review. I was only ever lukewarm until then, believed in aGW but not the Al Gore, Greenpeace version of AGW.

    Maybe the BBC should move in bigger, non exclusive circles, I imagine it was fun being a 'consensus' insider, environmental BBC journalist, invited to all the meetings, flying to conferences, for a while.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 12:14pm on 23 Sep 2010, hotashes wrote:

    On the topic of Arctic Sea Ice warmist blogger greenman3610 has posted a video on YouTube called '2010 Arctic Ice Update'. This video highlights the limitation of using satellite data to monitor sea ice instead of using empirical evidence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 12:15pm on 23 Sep 2010, Sparklet wrote:

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

  • 62. At 12:49pm on 23 Sep 2010, hotashes wrote:

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

  • 63. At 1:01pm on 23 Sep 2010, SR wrote:

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

  • 64. At 1:04pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 65. At 1:04pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 66. At 1:04pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 67. At 1:05pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 68. At 1:06pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 69. At 1:07pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 70. At 1:08pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 71. At 1:10pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 72. At 1:10pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 73. At 1:15pm on 23 Sep 2010, SR wrote:

    @61
    The statistical methods remove these biases from the overall trend. There are, again, multiple lines of evidence disproving this theory that the UHIE is skewing the warming trend upwards.

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 1:16pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Richard said:

    "What about scientists? If researchers publish papers on climate change that do not include cataclysmic warnings of where the world is heading, will they receive the same treatment?"

    Sorry for the lots of posts....

    I just searched for Lindzens quote on the back of Booker book (mine is with a green party member)
    and I came across this. A very short extract of a list of SCIENTISTS that have received 'abuse' from the warmists'

    http://www.abd.org.uk/resources/quotes/gwt.htm

    Again Sorry, don't want to hog the blog..

    anyone can google them for themsleves to track back to verifiable sources (evidence, that may have passed the BBC by)

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 1:26pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 76. At 1:32pm on 23 Sep 2010, SR wrote:

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

  • 77. At 1:34pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 78. At 1:39pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 79. At 1:50pm on 23 Sep 2010, SR wrote:

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

  • 80. At 1:57pm on 23 Sep 2010, Tom Forrester-Paton wrote:

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

  • 81. At 2:19pm on 23 Sep 2010, climateheretic wrote:

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

  • 82. At 2:44pm on 23 Sep 2010, dave wrote:

    Hilarious.

    Richard Black is now classed as a sceptic, a denier.

    Perhaps it's because (in his own words, as he once denounced sceptics)...."...climate scepticism has psychological roots; that it stems from a deep-seated inability or unwillingness to accept the overwhelming evidence that humanity has built with coal and lubricated with oil its own handcart whose destination board reads "climate hell".
    As one ex-scientist and now climate action advocate put it to me rather caustically a while back: "I've been debating the science with them for years, but recently I realised we shouldn't be talking about the science but about something unpleasant that happened in their childhood".

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 2:54pm on 23 Sep 2010, dave wrote:

    Strange that Richard Black exclaims surprise, it is a well known and established tactic of the AGW alarmists to overstate their case and proclaim disaster and death if we do not reduce CO2 etc.

    The BBC itself frequently indulges in such hysterics producing programmes predicting apocalypse tomorrow.

    What is actually going on here is that Richard is trying to suggest as he is criticised by the alarmists and sceptics he must be 'evenhanded' in his reporting.


    It is also probable that he realises global warming, man made, is no where near as certain or if it is a genuine factor, as extreme as has been proclaimed by the IPCC and Co and he is now backtracking and adopting a new position to his previous rock solid assurances that we are going to 'hell in a 4x4 handcart'....much as Ed Balls now claims he's never even heard of this bloke Gordon Brown.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 3:07pm on 23 Sep 2010, johntherock wrote:

    #80,

    Barry's spamming this thread with "appeal to authority" copy-and-pastings is not helping the discussion at all.

    The weight of evidence is that the Arctic is behaving just as expected - it is warming faster than the rest of the world. Why do you think we have just started the squabble over the Arctic's natural resources, eh? Because they'll be available to extract in due course. Why has the Black Angel Pb-Zn mine in W Greenland got a potential new lease of life? Because a huge new ore-zone has appeared. It was previously concealed under deep ice.

    Posting what Jeremy Paxman thinks does not alter what is actually going on out there!

    Cheers - John

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 3:46pm on 23 Sep 2010, Sparklet wrote:

    re #84. At 3:07pm on 23 Sep 2010, johntherock

    Isn't this what you would expect for a world emerging from an Ice Age!! And it's nice to know there are some benefits.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 3:58pm on 23 Sep 2010, OPatrick wrote:

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

  • 87. At 3:59pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 88. At 4:11pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    oh look my comment has been removed for consideration 59# - Gatekeeping at the BBC?

    Presumably someone has 'complained'

    That was on TOTALLY on topic, my interpretation of events, with evidence to show people where my own personal conclusion were coming from...

    it was criticism, not abuse...

    If someone disagree with you it is not abusive.
    By the looks of the comments here many are agreeing with parts of my comments.. but presumably someone has complained at it has been removed..

    Bit like Comment is FREE (delete,delete,delete)

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 4:16pm on 23 Sep 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Richard,

    Welcome back bet you didn't expect all this from the warmist crew?

    Well lets put it into a little context so the attack hounds let go. Your artical came form a second press release article from NOAA. The article had to be changed as the errors in the first were picked up pretty quick as been obviously untrue. It was something Romm had already gone with as being the sign of doom and death. NOAA corrected the press release and also their graphics which due to sat problems had mis-represented the coverage and density, somebody believes they are photographs:).

    Uncle Joe yet again got stuck, having preached to the faithful "The Ice is melting were all doomed" had to find away to deflect it, as are many outbursts of his nonsense. He even throws in somebodies kitchen experiment model and misrepresents the findings and the quotes.

    Don't let it get to you as you have more knowledge on climate matters than Romm will have in ten life times. I might not agree with you but at least you are civil and prepared to contest the issues.


    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 4:20pm on 23 Sep 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #84

    And that will be the lead mine opened by the Eric the Red in 1126 then. The share holders are pretty patient it only took 800 years to get down there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 4:23pm on 23 Sep 2010, johntherock wrote:

    Sparklet #85,

    We reached the Holocene Optimum (end of the warm-up out of the last glacial maximum)several thousand years ago. We are well out of the ice-age. Instead, we seem to be heading for mid-Cenozoic conditions...

    cheers - John

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 4:24pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    79# if that is incorrect I withdraw it, much like Richard Black rcently in a MeaCulpa article...

    However, In that response, personally detect a rabbit in a headlights momnent for the scientist discussed...

    Unwilling having to defend himself against the consensus, having to explain, himself.

    I wonder if the solar physicts pessimistically thinking about the posibility of a Dalton or Maunder minimu agree,

    that a trace gas at the levels of 380 ppm in the atmosphere, is a larger primary driver of the earth's climate than the SUN...

    Much in Uncertain.

    Let the debate begin.

    Can I have 59# back all my OWN words..

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 4:32pm on 23 Sep 2010, hotashes wrote:

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

  • 94. At 4:37pm on 23 Sep 2010, hotashes wrote:

    Re 83 with regard to the IPCC being alarmist

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

    Doesn't really suggest they are alarmist, does it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 4:50pm on 23 Sep 2010, johntherock wrote:

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

  • 96. At 5:29pm on 23 Sep 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    My, my the warmists are uspet and the attack trolls seem to be out in full force.

    Never mind old chap, you're in good company Judith Curry was pulled through the wringer not too long back and she just wanted to engage with people!

    Makes you wonder why though, what's the root cause of all this vitriol?

    It's not normal in other scientific circles. So why should it be normal in this one, people who disagree on the nature of gravity don’t run around calling each other quantum loop gravity deniers, they simply publish their work with their alternative theories and they get on with it.

    It's not even a proper religion - Philosophically speaking, this is more akin to cult, as even theologians will happily debate (with or without alcohol) contentious points until the sun goes down or even comes up again - Straying into Bowman territory now, so it’s probably time for me to stop typing... But I’ll finish with this...

    Maybe it’s time just to let them all get on with it?

    The rot’s already set in, they are attacking their own for even slight deviations from 'The Approved Message' and the total implosion can’t be that far off, as the scent of fear is most definitely in the air, panic is rife and the boys and girls of RC are most definitely in a little bit of a tizz.

    Eventually, all empires collapse like this.... maybe it’s time to buy a fiddle ;-)

    Anyone, know any good tunes?

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 5:42pm on 23 Sep 2010, SamuelPickwick wrote:

    Richard,
    There was absolutely nothing wrong with your article. Romm's incoherent ranting makes no sense. I am not sure this is anything new - he and others of his ilk have been making such attacks for some time, on moderate journalists such as Andy Revkin. It's just the first time he's chosen to pick on you.
    There are extremists on both sides of this issue, and they are best ignored.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 5:50pm on 23 Sep 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Barry Woods
    Are you having a bad hair day? You don't normally spam this much.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 6:04pm on 23 Sep 2010, Tenney Naumer wrote:

    Dear Richard,

    I have long been a fan of your writing which is the reason that the article in question was so disturbing. It does not represent the science accurately and certainly downplays the clear and certain danger we face as a species.

    I don't blame you for defending yourself, but you are playing into the hands of the Koch brothers funded Climate Denial Machine when you write things like this:

    "where every word has to be weighed for ideological purity rather than accuracy"

    Climate change is not ideological -- it is here now.

    That was a really weak sort of defence and beneath you.

    Further, you mention "orchestration". Well, if you mean that like-minded individuals communicate with each other on an ongoing basis and that said individuals got together to protest what they felt was a really bad lapse on your part, then yes, it was orchestrated.

    Lots of us who are concerned about the terrible reporting in the media on an issue that is the most important issue of our times do communicate extensively with each other.

    We are just part of the enormous and growing unease building over the lack of our governments and leaders to do anything to stop us all from going over the cliff we have made for ourselves.

    We need journalists to help us.

    And we need you to help us, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with ideology.

    Do you have kids? I have a daughter. She has already gone through the famous inland hurricane (derecho) that hit Carbondale, Illinois, in May 2009, with sustained winds of over 104 mph. Thousands of trees went down, and that city is still repairing itself.

    These macro downbursts with their ferocious horizontal winds (such as recently hit Brooklyn) will become ever more frequent as temperatures rise and the air carries more and more water vapor. They can reach stupendously destructive speeds. Note the 3-day storm in 2005 in the Amazon that knocked down 0.5 billion trees! People simply do not get what one or two degrees of temperature rise can do, and it is already doing it.

    Richard, as the environmental correspondent for the BBC, you bear great responsibility. It is not well done for you to be glib. You are just one man, but don't forget that one man can change the world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 6:13pm on 23 Sep 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    The art of political distraction. As people worry about the lack of economic improvements and the coming budget cuts the governments would like people to be distracted by other things. Emotions spur the debate and the politicians have no plans to address the issue so they prolong the debate. The governments would like cap and trade as it will be a revenue source for both them and the financial services industry...the evil twins of the economic collapse.
    Pitiful governments that believe that public relations will still be accepted as a substitute for action.
    Richard, you should be getting invitations to great speaking events because apparently you are one of the more influential individuals of this debate....hope your bosses provide a pay raise equal to your new status...

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 6:29pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 102. At 6:45pm on 23 Sep 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Have any of you read Tales of the Plumed Serpent? Interesting little tales of the end of the long count, Aztec, Maya, Inca (that sort of stuff). The tale I like best is how the tools of mankind turned against their owners and started beating them for all the years of abuse. As we enter the run up to the next solar maximum perhaps we will not have time or the means to argue about anything here. 2012 here we come!

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 6:48pm on 23 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

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

  • 104. At 6:55pm on 23 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

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

  • 105. At 6:59pm on 23 Sep 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #88 Barry Woods wrote:

    "it was criticism, not abuse"

    Unfortunately, the entire debate has got so bogged down in moralistic attitudes, silly paranoid conspiracies about this or that side being organized/funded by dark corporate forces, and endless victim-stancing that the terms 'criticism' and 'abuse' have become hopelessly entangled in almost everyone's minds.

    This is going nowhere.

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 7:06pm on 23 Sep 2010, Stephen wrote:

    Richard, you don't address the issue. Joe Romm is correct to suggest the report is biased. The fact is that your article only mentioned ocean currents, not the most likely reason for the global warmth, greenhouse gases. Quote:

    "The last 12 months have been unusually warm globally - according to NASA, the warmest in its 130-year record. This is partly down to El Nino conditions in the Pacific Ocean, which have the effect of raising temperatures globally."

    Do you retract this statement and agree the following one would have been far better?

    Global temperatures over the last 12 months have reached record high levels - according to NASA, the warmest in its 130-year record. This continues a long term warming trend which can only be fully explained by the increasing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Whilst this may have been exacerbated by El Nino ocean conditions in the Pacific Ocean, that only other potential source of warming, the sun is still relatively inactive.

    Perhaps some mention of the rapid falls in ice thickness would have been appropriate as well, rather than focusing on area alone.

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 7:12pm on 23 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

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

  • 108. At 7:18pm on 23 Sep 2010, rossglory wrote:

    "This week, for the first time, I am seeing the same pattern from their opponents."

    imho there are no opponents of the 'sceptics', 'deniers' or whatever. there is a body of science and there are people who can't/won't accept that there are consequences from this. the debate is no longer scientific but political and it is abundantly clear who is winning that debate.

    i have read a fair amount recently about this fact and it doesn't surprise me that the tactics that are deemed to be winning the political debate are being more widely used.

    personally, i don;t like it. but i also do not like the fact that we are building coal power stations, exploiting tar and shale deposits, drilling in deep water and soon in the arctic/antarctic. and the truth is the attacks, smears, lies, mistruths etc that are the mainstay of the right wing libertarian agenda do work (possibly not with everyone) so as a left leaning liberal i'm left in a quandary :o(

    after the article about rice production you may just be feeling a bit defensive. i remember reading an article by james hansen and advice he received struck a chord with me and i've suggested it to others, "be true to yourself"......or for short, "betty"

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 7:25pm on 23 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Just read most of the comments at CP. Wow, a right rowdy bunch they are, alarmists all of them, what an unruly mob! (sarcasm).

    Barry, did you see the comment posted by Stephen Leahey defending Black, or the one poster who asked people to be polite if they chose to contact the BBC, or when Mark Brayne complimented Black? Romm even notes, that Black, that is one of the few remaining serious science and environment reporters. Romm rightly holds Black to a high standard, b/c he has been told that Balck is a 'serious' reporter.

    With that all said, maybe Romm and Richard need to take a step back, take a deep breath and call a truce; and perhaps agree that they were perhaps a little too quick on the trigger.

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 7:32pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    I was reading the comments as well.... Albatross

    I suggest Richard Black reads trhem as well, Joe Romm responds in his comments about Richard..

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 7:41pm on 23 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

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

  • 112. At 7:44pm on 23 Sep 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

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

  • 113. At 7:57pm on 23 Sep 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "there are no opponents of the 'X'. there is a body of Y and there are people who can't/won't accept that there are consequences from this"

    As an exercise, I suggest we try to think up some alternative versions of the 'X' and Y above.

    It's really quite scary, this moralistic crusade that says (to paraphrase Bertrand Russell) "we should believe Y, not because Y is likely to be true but because we are morally obliged to believe Y".

    Ridiculous -- and funny if it weren't so embarrassingly uninformed by logic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 8:01pm on 23 Sep 2010, Tenney Naumer wrote:

    Richard, how can you call us warmists? Haven't you noticed that spring comes earlier and winter comes later in England by several weeks?

    This is reality, not a moniker.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 8:20pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    This the same Tenney with this headline on their blog

    Thursday, September 23, 2010
    The BBC goes Koch -- decides global warming not worth reporting cuz "been there, done that"

    Sounds like Tenny is calling the BBC fossil fuel *******

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 8:23pm on 23 Sep 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    bowmanthebored #112, #113.

    #112. "Are we having fun yet?"

    too much fun to read the second sentence of the paragraph, apparently.

    #113. ""there are no opponents of the 'X'. there is a body of Y and there are people who can't/won't accept that there are consequences from this"

    As an exercise, I suggest.."

    as an exercise, I suggest we deliberately quote falsely in order to create the impression that best suits our intentions to 'let rip' for the sake of listening to our own voices.

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 8:26pm on 23 Sep 2010, jr4412 wrote:

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

  • 118. At 8:43pm on 23 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

    Re #117, Not to worry jr, thanks for clarifying and no offense was taken :)

    Now I have got to take care of some things.

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 9:19pm on 23 Sep 2010, Tenney Naumer wrote:

    Oh, did you like that Barry?

    Yeah, when the BBC decides that the most important issue in all of human history is a snooze, then sumpthin aint rite.

    I call that "going Koch".

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 10:14pm on 23 Sep 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "too much fun to read the second sentence of the paragraph, apparently."

    Just quote the bit you think is relevant.


    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 10:20pm on 23 Sep 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

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

  • 122. At 10:21pm on 23 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Have the cavaly arrived see comment 1...

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 10:22pm on 23 Sep 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

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

  • 124. At 10:52pm on 23 Sep 2010, jr4412 wrote:

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

  • 125. At 10:58pm on 23 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

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

  • 126. At 11:40pm on 23 Sep 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

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

  • 127. At 11:48pm on 23 Sep 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @jr4412

    Well Mr Yeo seems to like playing golf, so he'll fit right in, in Cancun ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 11:55pm on 23 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

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

  • 129. At 00:01am on 24 Sep 2010, pendantry wrote:

    Mr Black, you say: "... those of us who attempt to report on climate change objectively ..."
    My tuppence here is to wonder whether, in reporting 'objectively,' you consider it necessary to give inappropriate weight to a vocal minority so as to maintain the appearance of impartiality.
    Does 'objective reporting' require ignoring known facts to provide 'balance'?
    Or is the problem that since news reporting thrives on controversy, and wilts in its absence, if there isn't sufficient debate then what there is must be cultivated?

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 00:52am on 24 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

    rniloc @129,

    Very well stated. Bravo.

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 01:07am on 24 Sep 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

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

  • 132. At 02:38am on 24 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

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

  • 133. At 05:54am on 24 Sep 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Interesting comments. The true believers still believe, apparently unaware of what is really going on, and how much has changed... as the pointless meeting in Cancun will soon show. (Of course, its not pointless to the gang who get yet another lavish junket at a beach resort.)

    In the meantime, real scientific research goes on:

    "A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since."

    Reported on, with links to the article and comments of course, at:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/23/surprise-peer-reviewed-study-says-current-arctic-sea-ice-is-more-extensive-than-most-of-the-past-9000-years/#more-25249

    Of course, what do Canadians know about the ice cap?

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 06:01am on 24 Sep 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

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

  • 135. At 08:59am on 24 Sep 2010, OPatrick wrote:

    That's interesting - see how a story can mutate so quickly. Roger Harrabin, who appears to be particularly critical of Pachauri - rightly or wrongly - calls around a few select people to get their views on whether he should resign. This then becomes 'environmentalists, UK MPs and scientists call for Pachauri's resignation'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 09:02am on 24 Sep 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    Annnd you're back in the room.

    Missed most of this 'debate' die to RL giving me a kick in the teeth, but thought i'd shove my tuppenceworth in.

    @ Richard.

    I'm sorry you're getting abuse for what you write. Though i would very humbly suggest that this sort of thing is by no-means an isolated incidence and that the 'skeptical side', despite your assertions, have been on the recieving-end of FAR worse, for FAR longer.

    As was mentioned above, if the message you recieved has 'merit' respond to it as such, perhaps as a blog entry, and outline your stance and whether you agree or not. But remember you are a journalist, so you are not expected to be able to hold a deeply technical discussion (though you may well be able to)- if in the context of 'reasonable reporting' you did your 'job' as it were, then i'd just ignore it. As 'we' have had to do for years. Otherwise it seems a case of 'overreacting'.

    Re- albatross and your attempts to 'defame' the excellent article on manns hockey-stick.

    The passages you link as prood the paper is 'wrong' have already been debunked themselves as 'off the cuff', inaccurate and most of all- 'scoring an own goal'.

    Instead, may i direct you to the recent rebuttal by Mann himself- a thoroughly interesting read i must admit. I'll then leave it to you to point out the SLIGHT, but VERY amusing problem with his rebuttal.

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 09:08am on 24 Sep 2010, SamuelPickwick wrote:

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

  • 138. At 09:31am on 24 Sep 2010, Dropstone wrote:

    The question here is not about the science. The science was pretty well shown up as dodgy from the get go. It still is and thanks to the internet, it will forever now be shown as based on very spurious data. This article is about the treatment of Richard by a former fellow traveler. Well Richard, welcome to our world, the world of the skeptic. Skepticism should be the default position of any scientist. For too long, this very young and immature branch of science has been run by post-normal scientists and to the point that climatology should really be renamed Climatography.

    It is time the adults from Physics and Chemistry stepped in to the play room and took charge. Fun time should be over. Serious science should now step in.

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 09:49am on 24 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 140. At 10:03am on 24 Sep 2010, mailmannz wrote:

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

  • 141. At 10:21am on 24 Sep 2010, quake wrote:

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

  • 142. At 10:50am on 24 Sep 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

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

  • 143. At 11:06am on 24 Sep 2010, hotashes wrote:

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

  • 144. At 11:19am on 24 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    @140 Mailmannz

    @84. johntherock,

    You might want to google Piri Reis. Somehow I suspect he disagrees with your notion that the world has never seen so little arctic ice in the entire history of the universe and everything in it.


    I don't understand this Mailmannz. Piri Reis appears to be a 16th century Turkish mapmaker who made a map which some people think shows
    Antarctica.

    Also, Johnthe Rock didn't say what you say he said

    At #84 he said this

    The weight of evidence is that the Arctic is behaving just as expected - it is warming faster than the rest of the world. Why do you think we have just started the squabble over the Arctic's natural resources, eh? Because they'll be available to extract in due course. Why has the Black Angel Pb-Zn mine in W Greenland got a potential new lease of life? Because a huge new ore-zone has appeared. It was previously concealed under deep ice.


    Nothing there about what happened in the early part of the Holocene, let alone "the entire history of the universe and everything in it"

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 11:31am on 24 Sep 2010, SR wrote:

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

  • 146. At 11:46am on 24 Sep 2010, quake wrote:

    Re 142 LabMunkey wrote:

    "I'm afraid the 'skeptic' side are doing their job rather well, pointing out the issues"

    The skeptic side contradict endlessly themselves. They claim things are doubtful then make assertions of fact that rely on those very things. They claim the science isn't settled but then assure us humans cannot cause dangerous climate change.

    "The IPCC et al assume that water provides a strongly positive feedback, the skeptics (and most of the observational evidence) suggests a neutral, or slightly negative feedback."

    Past climate change suggests climate sensitivity is high. The physics of atmosphere suggest it is high too. That's not an "assumption" is it?

    Furthermore even with negative feedback we are still driving global temperature. 0.5C warming per doubling of co2 would still leave human activity one of, if not the main, primary drivers of global temperature over the coming century. Which puts skeptic claims that humans are too small to alter the climate in perspective.

    And unless you claim to be certain that climate sensitivity is low, how sure are you that it might be high. Is skepticism based on running the risk?

    And therein lies the rub. All the doubts and uncertainty raised by skeptics is oddly slanted as if it reduces risk, when in fact doubt and uncertainty actually enhances it.

    For example you say "The temperature data is wholly compromised" yet skeptics wheel out the temperature data to make various claims such as it warmed as fast in the early 20th century as in recent decades, or that global warming has been statistically insignificant in the past 15 years. They shouldn't make those claims if the "temperature data is wholly compromised".

    For if the temperature data is "wholly compromised" then for all they know temperature could have risen exponentially over the last 100 years mirroring our greenhouse gas emissions to a T.

    "If your data is suspect, so to are your conclusions."

    Indeed and as you think the data is so suspect I recommend you consider the position you find man is in - raising co2 to unnatural levels and you have no idea what effect this is having or what will happen because all the data is so suspect.

    And apparently that makes manmade global warming a non-issue? I don't think so. I think you are laying a case for mitigating ghg emissions without realizing it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 11:54am on 24 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #138 Dropstone
    It is time the adults from Physics and Chemistry stepped in to the play room and took charge. Fun time should be over. Serious science should now step in.


    But Dropstone, if there was anything in what you say, why haven't they been doing that all along?

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 11:56am on 24 Sep 2010, johntherock wrote:

    Mailmannz #140,

    I am familiar with the Piri Reis map. The surviving fragment shows part of the Southern Hemisphere. Whether the landmass along its base is Antarctica or a skewed-around southern South America is open to interpretation.

    I am not sure what any of this has to do with Arctic ice though.

    cheers - John

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 11:58am on 24 Sep 2010, SR wrote:

    @133 Canadianrockies

    That is VERY VERY VERY bad reporting of a scientific paper.

    Your claim (or the scpetic's site claim) is that the paper shows that 'arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend for the past 9000 years'. The reality is that the paper only considers one SMALL part of the arctic, as demonstrated in the first line of the abstract for the paper:
    "Cores from site HLY0501-05 on the Alaskan margin in the eastern Chukchi Sea were analyzed for their geochemical (organic carbon, d13Corg, Corg/N, and CaCO3) and palynological (dinocyst, pollen, and spores) content to document oceanographic changes during the Holocene"

    The Chukchi sea is in fact only 3.5% of the area of the entire Arctic ocean.

    Now, this is what I hate about the AGW sceptic way of thinking. There is one paper like this and you extrapolate it to apply to the entire arctic. However, the other 150 or so similar papers studying other parts of the arctic showing the opposite are completely ignored? Why?!? We already know that there are localised effects and the there is increasing understanding for why this occurs (to do with southerly winds during winter - see the literature), but overall, there is a weight of evidence that the accelated loss of sea ice since the 19thC is mostly due to greenhouse gases. This view may change if the evidence changes, but why try to put round pegs in square holes to suit your pre-defined view? Why ignore the big picture?!? Your views are so blinkered and partisan, it prevents any way of converging to a better understanding.

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 12:04pm on 24 Sep 2010, Katabasis wrote:

    @quake

    "Past climate change suggests climate sensitivity is high."

    If this were the case, that positive feedbacks are strong, then such a system would have destroyed itself several times over through a "runaway global warming effect" before you and I had even evolved to model it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 12:04pm on 24 Sep 2010, Daviid_Dublin wrote:

    The late Alistair Cooke was always quoting Mencken. Here is a quote which is appropriate for the whole Climate Disruption argument:

    "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed ... by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary... The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it." (H. L. Mencken)

    Nothing to do with science - everything to do with politics. Q.E.D.

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 12:12pm on 24 Sep 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ quake---“The skeptic side contradict endlessly themselves.”--- And the rest.

    You make it sound like the skeptic side is one large organisation formed by some sort of oil-funded backwater cult. A lot of it is simply a lot of people taking their own view on the situation. Some of these people are right, some of them WAY wrong. You cannot use the ‘wrong’ arguments to discredit the ‘right’ ones.
    Also ---“They claim the science isn't settled but then assure us humans cannot cause dangerous climate change.” ---
    The credible skeptics do nothing of the sort. You seem to be responding to the propaganda, not the actual points raised
    ---“ Past climate change suggests climate sensitivity is high. The physics of atmosphere suggest it is high too. That's not an "assumption" is it?”---
    News to me, got any sources for that? I was under the direct impression that past climate data (specifically the vostock samples) indicated Low climate sensitivity, or at least significantly lower levels than the IPCC predict.

    ---“ For example you say "The temperature data is wholly compromised" yet skeptics wheel out the temperature data to make various claims such as it warmed as fast in the early 20th century as in recent decades, or that global warming has been statistically insignificant in the past 15 years. They shouldn't make those claims if the "temperature data is wholly compromised".”---
    I’m afraid you’re showing yourself up here. The data is indeed wholly compromised (I can go into this at any depth you require) and yes, it makes it exceptionally difficult to make any specific conclusions from it. However, that does not prevent the skeptics from using the SAME data the ‘warmists’ use to discredit the arguments they put forward. There is a very clear distinction on the two separate arguments that you have missed. Willfully I may add.

    ---“Indeed and as you think the data is so suspect I recommend you consider the position you find man is in - raising co2 to unnatural levels and you have no idea what effect this is having or what will happen because all the data is so suspect.”---
    Indeed and I support actions to sensibly reduce ANY pollutant. Show me a skeptic who thinks otherwise and I’ll show you an idiot.
    ---“ And apparently that makes manmade global warming a non-issue? I don't think so. I think you are laying a case for mitigating ghg emissions without realizing it.”---
    I’m not entirely sure where this conclusion came from, but you certainly seem certain of it.
    It seems to me, that you are being ‘taken in’ by the ‘warmist’ picture of ‘skeptics’ that has been painted. May I kindly remind you that each individual skeptic is worth of an individual response, just as each individual warmist is worthy of theirs (incidentally, are there any better terms for the two ‘sides’?? I hate using ‘warmist’ and ‘skeptic’). Just as dismissing all warmists due to one of their views is wrong, so too is the case for skeptics.
    I would again, kindly suggest you actually take time to look at what the prominent skeptics concerns actually are. I would wager that they do not match up with your current ‘mental image’ of them, or indeed I.
    Then, we could probably have a productive discussion, rather than what we are having to do now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 12:19pm on 24 Sep 2010, SR wrote:

    @151

    According to that logic, we are wise to think that nothing bad can ever happen to the human race unless it comes and takes the political world by complete surprise. What a cosy, pleasant and deluded way to live your life.

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 12:57pm on 24 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:


    LabMunkey...

    Cut an paste ideas fed to activists...
    Real Climate has a section like that..

    Just follow the mantra guys

    'the science is settled' .... etc, we will believe you!


    An example from Sceptic Alerts comment 1#
    Campaign Against Climate Change
    http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384

    "Theres any number of angles you might want to take but pointing out that the vast majority of climate scientists are sure that man made climate change is happening is not a bad one. Or how the fossil fuel companies are funding "think-tanks" whose job it is is to try and undermine the science of climate change. Or ..(I could go on forever)."

    some of these websites have whole 'stock answer' to questions, that usually do not answer the question.. Of course that is just MT opinion, not what I have been suggested to think..

    Have a look for your own judgement.

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 12:58pm on 24 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #150 Katabasis

    " "Past climate change suggests climate sensitivity is high."
    If this were the case, that positive feedbacks are strong, then such a system would have destroyed itself several times over through a "runaway global warming effect" before you and I had even evolved to model it."

    **************

    That's wrong Katabasis. During the ice age cycles, orbital effects eventually counteract the feedback loops

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 1:01pm on 24 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    See above, quite horrifying really:

    "(so much truth to tell...) "

    Whose truth the 70's style pravda version....

    Or just the orwellian kind...
    There can only be one truth in the 'consensus' of course..


    In Jo Romm's blog

    He complains that Richard did not mention man made CO2 emmisions, in his artic ice article..

    Is that a pre-requisite for every environmental journalist now, you must -re-inforce the message, or be castiogated?

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 1:11pm on 24 Sep 2010, hotashes wrote:

    Did anybody check out the video I mentioned in post 60?

    The video is on youtube posted by greenman3610 '2010 Arctic Ice Update'.

    It's interesting to add context to the satellite readings that have been much discussed on blogs recently (and on which Richard's orginal article was based).

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 1:11pm on 24 Sep 2010, mailmannz wrote:

    Paul Butler,

    Its the lack of ice that should be of interest to you. As is a recent paper, peer reviewed, that claims that ice in the arctic is the most it has been in the last 9000 years.

    But isnt it interesting how the left has "suddenly" lost all interest in antartica and focus on the arctic?

    But fair does to you for at least looking up Piri Reis. Next step is for you to understand the implications of his map in regards to todays alarmism about an ice free planet.

    Mailman

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 1:16pm on 24 Sep 2010, mailmannz wrote:

    > 144. At 11:19am on 24 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:
    >The weight of evidence is that the Arctic is behaving just as expected - it is warming faster than the rest of the >world.

    Once again, the science is not as settled as you want to believe it is. For those weather stations that are not near human habitation the arctic has shown no warming, while those that Mann et al prefer to use, that are close to human habitation do show temperature increases.

    So the conundrum is, which should we be trusting? And then there is the whole business of poor weather stats collection. But thats an argument for a different thread I suspect.

    also, as recently shown, the parts of the world that are supposedly experiencing the hottest temps in all of recorded history since the Universe started are those areas of the world where there is very little actual recorded data (ie. arctic and Africa).

    But hey, lets just keep believing that Mann Made Global Warming and the science behind it hasnt been corrupted by big ego. Much easier to blame everything on big oil.

    Mailman

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 1:23pm on 24 Sep 2010, mailmannz wrote:

    >@152 Labmunkey;
    >I would again, kindly suggest you actually take time to look at what the prominent >skeptics concerns actually are. I would wager that they do not match up with your >current ‘mental image’ of them, or indeed I.

    Wasn't it interesting LM, how McIntyre was received by the alarmists that bothered to turn up to the debates he recently took part in here in London. To a man, these alarmists were surprised at just how articulate McIntyre is.

    I suspect that the majority of alarmists who attended were expecting to hear a gibbering idiot...but what they got instead was the gibbering idiot being on "their" side :)

    Because they had been conditioned to believe that so called skeptics were idiots, they werent mentally prepared for what they got, that McIntyre isnt the anti-christ and he knows his stuff.

    Mailman

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 1:33pm on 24 Sep 2010, Katabasis wrote:

    @Paul Butler

    "That's wrong Katabasis. During the ice age cycles, orbital effects eventually counteract the feedback loops"

    I'm not the one proposing it. We're being asked to believe that the climate has strong positive feedbacks that - this time - will not be counteracted by any corresponding negative feedbacks. The most important part of the alarmist hypothesis is the claimed positive feedbacks, which as yet, evidentially have yet to be demonstrated (also illustrated by the changing 'tipping points' given for CO2 and/or temperature). I take it you are referring to Milankovitch cycles btw?

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 1:44pm on 24 Sep 2010, SR wrote:

    @158
    "Its the lack of ice that should be of interest to you. As is a recent paper, peer reviewed, that claims that ice in the arctic is the most it has been in the last 9000 years."

    See my post 149.

    If you think this paper says that arctic sea ice is greater now than at any time in the last 9000 years, you are wrong. It looks at one very small part of the arctic (3.5%) - a part that climate scientists already knew showed a lot of variability because of its unique geographical position and exposure to southerly winds in winter.

    Look into it a bit more and you'll see this is yet another example of misinterpretation of the scientific evidence. There are actually plenty of other papers, some using models, some using reconstructions, that tie in with the view that the accelerated loss of sea ice in the last 200 years is probably due to GHG emissions - and if you look closely, a lot of them already mention the 'negative anomaly' exhibited by the bit of sea talked about in the paper I think you are referring to.

    Just be fair and balanced.

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 1:52pm on 24 Sep 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #116 jr4412

    good post. i kinda stopped taking much notice of blowman after he was arrogant enough to admit he often posted just for effect (i.e. troll posting).

    the only thing you can guarantee with him is that he wont read and try to understand your whole post.

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 1:56pm on 24 Sep 2010, hotashes wrote:

    160 Mailman

    The problem with being articulate is you can use this to cover up misinformation. Lord Christopher Monckton is very articulate, however, it doesn't make what he says correct

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 1:58pm on 24 Sep 2010, SR wrote:

    @160

    To be completely honest, I was surprised by how far out of his way he went to warn the most aggressive sceptics to just lower the volume a bit. Also, what do you think about McIntyre's admission that if he were in government, he would actually take action. What does that say?

    McIntyre seems irritated by the absurdity of most of the sceptic arguments and though he thinks some of the science is a bit dodgy (probably to less than a significant degree), he in fact supports AGW in principle, else why say that he would take action if in government?

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 2:08pm on 24 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    mailmannz #158

    "Its the lack of ice that should be of interest to you. As is a recent paper, peer reviewed, that claims that ice in the arctic is the most it has been in the last 9000 years."

    Two responses to this.
    First see SR #149 who outlines the limited scope of the paper in question
    Second, its fairly well known that global temperatures have been trending slowly down since the holocene climate optimum around 6000 years BP (when there is no doubt temperatures were higher than they are today), so it would not surprise me at all to find that the Arctic had been ice free thousands of years ago

    ______________________________________________________
    "But isnt it interesting how the left has "suddenly" lost all interest in antartica and focus on the arctic?"

    Frankly I have no idea who or what this 'left' is!
    And I think climate scientists have just as much interest in what is happening in Antarctica as in the Arctic. Remember though that Antarctica is a land mass surrounded by ocean, whereas the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land. Don't expect them necessarily to show similar patterns of development in a warming world

    _______________________________________________________
    "But fair does to you for at least looking up Piri Reis. Next step is for you to understand the implications of his map in regards to todays alarmism about an ice free planet."

    No mailmannz. I have a job of work to do. You'll have to explain for me. Although I don't think you'd be justified in regarding the information in a 16th century map as more reliable than multiple strands of scientific evidence gained through the use of modern techniques

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 2:25pm on 24 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    mailmannz #159

    > 144. At 11:19am on 24 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:
    >The weight of evidence is that the Arctic is behaving just as expected - it is warming faster than the rest of the >world.

    Once again, the science is not as settled as you want to believe it is. For those weather stations that are not near human habitation the arctic has shown no warming, while those that Mann et al prefer to use, that are close to human habitation do show temperature increases.


    For the record I didn't write that (JohntheRock I think), but I do basically agree with it.
    Now I have no intention of getting into an interminable argument about the intricate details of individual weather stations. I'd just say that the continuing trend of loss of sea ice extent indicated by the satellite record does indicate that the models used to determine temperatures in the Arctic are broadly correct. But I have no idea which of the main models (GISS or CRU) is closer to reality.


    ________________________________________________________________
    also, as recently shown, the parts of the world that are supposedly experiencing the hottest temps in all of recorded history since the Universe started are those areas of the world where there is very little actual recorded data (ie. arctic and Africa).

    Recorded history does not run back to the start of the Universe.
    And while I think the Arctic is supposed to be warming faster than other areas, I don't think the same has been suggested for Africa. Do you have a citation?

    ____________________________________________________________
    But hey, lets just keep believing that Mann Made Global Warming and the science behind it hasnt been corrupted by big ego. Much easier to blame everything on big oil.

    It hasn't. No need to pretend.
    And big oil does have a case to answer. Why wouldn't it? Its main goal is to provide a profit stream for its shareholders. Anything that threatens to reduce our dependence on oil represents a threat to that profit stream. They'd be letting down their shareholders if the didn't attempt to maintain that dependence. And there are multiple lines of evidence (of which I'm sure you are well aware) to indicate that one of the ways they do that is to fund groups and individuals that question the science behind climate change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 2:57pm on 24 Sep 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    @165, SR

    I believe McIntyre's comment meant that a politician's personal belief should not override that of scientific experts. That is not to assign any beliefs to Steve McIntyre either for or against climate science. He has avoided expressing his own beliefs and politics although I seem to remember him stating that he was probably to the left of many of his readers and somewhere else as a Clinton type democrat. Not quite the raving right-winger that some would paint him.

    To be pragmatic, if the science is correct then the politician gets the credit for following the advice. If the science is wrong then the scientists get the blame.

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 3:00pm on 24 Sep 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    to pick up on a few points paul

    ---"I'd just say that the continuing trend of loss of sea ice extent indicated by the satellite record does indicate that the models used to determine temperatures in the Arctic are broadly correct"---

    This is a dangerous line of reasoning, only because there is actually a far larger factor in play. Although i understand the reasoning, sea ice levels do not reflect temperature as you may think.

    Also, direct measurements using aeroplanes show's the 'interpolated' arctic data to be wrong. But it's a climate model so let's throw out the raw data...

    ---"And big oil does have a case to answer. Why wouldn't it? Its main goal is to provide a profit stream for its shareholders."---

    Although i largely agree with the thrust of this statement paul in general terms, i'm afraid it shows a bias of fore-thought wrt you 'stance' on this issue. I.e. because of a percieved distaste for big oil and it's machniations- you seem to automatically attribute blame where none (may) lie.

    Your posts are generally much much better than this, don't get dragged down into the 'scrap' over he said, she said.

    finally

    ---" to indicate that one of the ways they do that is to fund groups and individuals that question the science behind climate change. "---

    To add context to this attempted slight via assosiation i would kindly point out that big oil piles FAR more money into pro AGW causes/research/propoganda then they MAY do for anything contrary.

    There is significant, publically available evidence for this, but it is often ignored to allow people to dismiss via association.

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 3:34pm on 24 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    LabMunkey #169

    ---"I'd just say that the continuing trend of loss of sea ice extent indicated by the satellite record does indicate that the models used to determine temperatures in the Arctic are broadly correct"---

    This is a dangerous line of reasoning, only because there is actually a far larger factor in play. Although i understand the reasoning, sea ice levels do not reflect temperature as you may think.

    Also, direct measurements using aeroplanes show's the 'interpolated' arctic data to be wrong. But it's a climate model so let's throw out the raw data...


    Fair dos LM. Of course if the temperature is already high enough to melt the ice it'll carry on melting even if the temp doesn't go up any further, so that wasn't a very good argument

    With respect to the models, yes they will now often override particular data (see the excellent history of weather and climate modelling in 'A Vast machine' by Paul Edwards). Its very much a developing science though, and it would be a shame if the whole enterprise was thrown out of the window because it fails to predict a complex system as precisely as it could.

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 3:38pm on 24 Sep 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    @132 Albatross wrote:

    “ … You said @ 121 'but am yet to see anyone show any substantive error'
    I gave you two concrete examples. Then you go and state "It appears that Albatross is unable to find any substantive errors." … “

    Mentioning two hostile reviews that fail to find errors is not 'two concrete examples'.

    In his review, Tamino omitted to speak of his part in Montford's HSI, from page 149:

    Tamino defending Mann's unorthodox PCA: 'You shouldn't just take my word for it, but you should take the word of Ian Jolliffe, one of the worlds foremost experts.'

    Ian Jolliffe in response to Tamino: '… my views have been misrepresented … An apology from the person who wrote the page would be nice'

    Now that is a concrete example.

    Unable to find errors in the HSI Albatross goes on to wrongly state: “ You and your cohorts are stuck in 1998 Rob, time to move on. The science has advanced immensely since MBH98, what is your excuse? Got to keep fabricating arguments and controversy, perhaps?”

    Anyone who had read the HSI would be aware that it effectively deals with proxy reconstructions up to its publication. This includes the immensely advanced use of lake sediment data contaminated by building work and used upside-down.

    Progress indeed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 3:45pm on 24 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #169 (more)

    ---"And big oil does have a case to answer. Why wouldn't it? Its main goal is to provide a profit stream for its shareholders."---

    Although i largely agree with the thrust of this statement paul in general terms, i'm afraid it shows a bias of fore-thought wrt you 'stance' on this issue. I.e. because of a percieved distaste for big oil and it's machniations- you seem to automatically attribute blame where none (may) lie.


    FWIW I'm not opposed to the capitalist model by any means. Its a far more efficient engine of production then any alternative. But I think citizens need to be aware when certain organizations become too powerful, when they become able to influence the wider economy in their own interests. Remember the massive profits that accrued after the spike in oil prices a couple of years ago. If oil becomes more scarce or more expensive to produce those spikes (and those profits) will become more common.

    On the other hand, as you mention later in #169
    To add context to this attempted slight via assosiation i would kindly point out that big oil piles FAR more money into pro AGW causes/research/propoganda then they MAY do for anything contrary.

    ... they also invest in new forms of energy. I think that's partly greenwash, but I also think they are aware that they may have to diversify in the future, so its partly genuine. Whatever their motives, I think they need to be encouraged down that road.



    Your posts are generally much much better than this, don't get dragged down into the 'scrap' over he said, she said.


    Thanks. I try not to!

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 4:11pm on 24 Sep 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ paul #170.

    "Its very much a developing science though, and it would be a shame if the whole enterprise was thrown out of the window because it fails to predict a complex system as precisely as it could. "

    On this i wholeheartedly agree. NOt all climate science is flawed, just (in my opinion) some if it (which happens to be the 'in thing' at present).

    As long as deficiencies are identified, highlighted and resolved (or at least worked towards) i'm more than happy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 4:22pm on 24 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

    SR @148,

    No surprises there, 'skeptics' cherry picking yet again. Thanks for exposing both the poster's deception and WUWT misrepresent the scientific findings of the paper (nothing new there I suppose):

    The authors in that paper conclude:

    "Results indicate a decrease in sea-ice cover and a corresponding, albeit much smaller, increase in summer sea-surface temperature over the past 9000 years. Superimposed on these long-term trends are millennial-scale fluctuations characterized by periods of low sea-ice and high sea-surface temperature and salinity that appear quasi-cyclic with a frequency of about one every 2500–3000 years. The results of this study clearly show that sea-ice cover in the western Arctic Ocean has varied throughout the Holocene. More importantly, there have been times when sea-ice cover was less extensive than at the end of the 20th century"

    That most definitely does not draw the following headline at WUWT:

    "Peer-reviewed study says current Arctic sea ice is more extensive than most of the past 9000 years"

    What utter nonsense. And this paper does tells us nothing about what the Arctic sea ice will do.

    Even the notorious "skeptic", Steve Goddard, is on the record says the Arctic Sea ice will be gone in the late summer around 2065-- which is decades sooner than those 'alarmist' IPCC projections. But in the next sentence WUWT tell us that the ice is fine and this is all perfectly normal. Well even losing the summer arctic ice by 2065 would represent be a huge climate shift for that region. WUWT and "skeptics" misinforming here want us to ignore that canary in the coal mine....the Arctic sea ice.

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 4:34pm on 24 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    As this is Richard Black's sceptical AGW blog('some' of the commentators at Climate Progress - Joe Romm's blog, seems to think the BBC is a hot bed of sceptics.)

    I would like to thank the BBC moderators for the intergrity in allowing all those 'warmists' voices to comment here.... and not allowing anything as abusive along the lines of Climate Progress...

    In my experience all to often sceptics are deleted, moderated into oblivion at countless 'warmist' blogs, so the 'warmists' commenting here should thank the sceptical BBC blogs for NOT treating them in kind...

    (ie RealClimate,Guardian, are renowned for their moderation of 'sceptics')

    As it is Richards blog, let us use this word 'warmists' for 'alarmists'..

    (sorry irony and mild sarcasm over over)

    A serious thank you to the BBC ( a longtime perceived advocate of AGW )for running an honest blog, where ALL are welcome...


    (as long as they follow the house rules - no direct links to PDF's - naughty me!)

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 4:35pm on 24 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

    SR @148,

    You and others here in pursuit of the truth will no doubt be interested in the following paper which was just published. There is an interesting twist here, the lead author of the paper below (Polyak), was a co-author of the paper (discussed above) which WUWT and some here are trying.

    There is a new paper (written by top scientists in the field) out which uses proxy data from around the Arctic basin (not just one location) and adjacent areas to document the history of the sea ice over the Arctic basin and appeared in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews in 2010 ("History of sea ice in the Arctic"). Their conclusion?

    "The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities."

    Polyak et al. know a great deal about sea ice.....and the rapid loss of ice that we are experiencing now is significant. We ignore their findings at our own peril.




    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 4:57pm on 24 Sep 2010, apdavidson wrote:

    There are big problems for those who put their faith in the IPCC:

    1. As determined by oceanic heat capacity global warming ceased in 2003.

    2. As there is no theoretical or experimental justification of the 'cloud albedo effect' correction to predicted AGW, it is much lower than claimed.

    3. Because polluted thick clouds probably cause warming, an alternative AGW but self limiting, the AGW due to CO2 could be very small, even zero.

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 5:06pm on 24 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

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

  • 179. At 5:41pm on 24 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

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

  • 180. At 5:48pm on 24 Sep 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    @178 Albatross, still unable to find any errors in Montford's HSI, resorts to the same sort of name calling that led Richard Black to write this post.

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 6:31pm on 24 Sep 2010, apdavidson wrote:

    Albatross: 'I'll leave points 2 and 3, although they are also probably addressed at SkepticalScience (which cites scientific literature to refute common myths and misconceptions about climate science).'

    Go to NASA sites, like this for example: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/

    'Figure 2b. (right) The high aerosol concentrations in these clouds provide the nucleation points necessary for the formation of many small liquid water droplets. Up to 90% of visible radiation (light) is reflected back to space by such clouds without reaching Earth's surface. '

    This is fantasy physics. The most charitable interpretation is that someone has reversed the backward and forward directions in Mie analysis, easily done because it's counter-intuitive. Do the job properly and high albedos are from large droplets by a process initially involving forward scattering [first scattering 'reflection is c. 0.1% at 5 microns, c. 0.01% at 15 microns.] The rider is that pollution decreases the albedo of thick clouds. It's powerful effect and may explain why heating has stopped - self limiting you see, unlike a CO2 explanation.

    Someone's made a booboo and when I have politely pointed this out on Real Climate, Climate Progress etc., the post has been swiftly deleted.

    I'll try skepticalscience though. It'll check how honest they are.

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 6:33pm on 24 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

    My how those in denial about AGW do like to distort and even lie. What in fact got this started was Mr. Black writing a piece on the state of the Arctic sea ice which had some noteworthy omission/s and inaccuracies.

    As far as I can tell, Romm did not call Richard names in his piece-in fact he refers to Black as one of the few remaining serious science and environment reporters. In contrast, the hyperlink to Black's story on the BBC site is "Mob rule".

    And I did not call Montford names. Mr. McIntosh's review of the book was in quotes, and for that matter I don't see him calling Montford "names" in the piece I quoted. If anyone has an issue with his (accurate) assessment of Montford's "book" take it up with him.

    And if folks would like to read more about the critique of Montford's "book", please go here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

    Another problem that I have with Montford's is that he is making money using material in his book which was illegally obtained from UAE/CRU. People of honor do not do that.




    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 6:50pm on 24 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #181 apdavidson

    Someone's made a booboo and when I have politely pointed this out on Real Climate, Climate Progress etc., the post has been swiftly deleted.

    I'll try skepticalscience though. It'll check how honest they are.



    As a matter of interest, have you ever tried presenting your theories on any of the more mainstream 'anti-warmist' sites, such as Climate Audit or Watt's Up With That?

    I only ask because I wonder whether your getting deleted is really to do with your perceived view on CO2 theory, or whether its because your science has no substantive backing in any field of physics (ie do any published papers support it)

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 6:59pm on 24 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

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

  • 185. At 7:00pm on 24 Sep 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Paul Butler #183 wrote:

    I wonder whether your getting deleted is really to do with your perceived view on CO2 theory, or whether its because your science has no substantive backing in any field of physics (ie do any published papers support it)

    Are there some people who regard that as reasonable grounds to delete anything? Wow!

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 7:07pm on 24 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

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

  • 187. At 7:12pm on 24 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    # 185

    It depends on the topic Bowman

    If a thread is running a serious and detailed analysis of a particular scientific issue, it may be regarded as OT to come up with something which looks complicated but which does not really have any backing in the literature.

    And I think the real point of my question to apdavidson was whether his theories were seen in the 'anti-warmist' camp as a viable alternative to the mainstream AGW theory.

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 7:42pm on 24 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    the topic is 'when warmists attack!

    Richard seem surprised that about this, 'in his experience'

    My suggestion is that Richard has had his blinkers on...

    Just a look through the various blogs (romm's included) demonstrates this to be incorrect..

    Oc course as a balnced environmental bbc journalist. He can now investigate, to see what the sceptics think..

    I imagine, that Anthony Watts, Jo Nova, Steve Mcintyre, Tom Fuller, just for a start, may be able to enlighten Richard....

    or Professor Plimer..

    His book - Heaven and Earth - has such viriol poured onto it, that needs to be seen..

    Or you could ask David Bellamy aboutthe 'kind words that Georeg Monbiot publishes in the Guardian about him...

    (whever you think these people are right or wrong, it is a fact that they have been on the receiving end of the AGW advocates ire(sorry 'warmists')

    Back on topic...

    Don't want to get to far off topic, that the House Rules kick in.

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 7:58pm on 24 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    186...

    If the house rules are, don't say anything that they don't like or makes them look bad, ie eveidence/facts.. well you are probably right!

    If it was so wrong /silly.... surely they would ALLOW it, so they pick holes in it, which as anyone can see, is what they do..

    The most interesting thread at RC, was when Judith Curry posted, and was able to defend herself... The locals were NOT used to this, they allways thought that their witticisms had chased peop;le away..

    Not realising (personal example) that whilst the regulars could keep piling on their 'comments' any reponses were just being deleted...

    Thus, the locals, had to endure Judith pulling them to pices...

    As, clearly, someone in important, might notice if Judith Curry (ie Judith Curry!)kept getting deleted and be able to confirm it/report it to other climate scientists..

    RC has hadt this repuation for sometime.

    I imagine that was a bit of a bind for the moderators..
    They appear to have since excommunicated each other....

    (RC - JC that is)

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 8:10pm on 24 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    sorry for the typos my 2 year old is still up......

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 8:12pm on 24 Sep 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Paul Butler #187 wrote:

    If a thread is running a serious and detailed analysis of a particular scientific issue, it may be regarded as OT to come up with something which looks complicated but which does not really have any backing in the literature.

    Authoritarianism rules, yet again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 8:17pm on 24 Sep 2010, apdavidson wrote:

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

  • 193. At 8:42pm on 24 Sep 2010, Dropstone wrote:

    Paul Butler Said at #147:

    But Dropstone, if there was anything in what you say, why haven't they been doing that all along?

    Err quite a lot of scientists have been trying to get around the corrupted peer review process that had been taken over by the hockey team.

    Read the emails. Its all there.

    Anyway, its nearly all over now. Soon only the die-hard warming cultists will be left. You lost the public at Copenhagen. You are starting to loose the main stream media. The MSM are starting to back pedal out of this cul de sac.

    The power of the internet is a wonderful thing isn't it? You might just have got away with this pseudoscience had it not been for M and M, WUWT, Bishop Hill, Jo Nova and Marc Morano and all the others that took the time to dissect the data.

    Did you really believe that a few Carbon Dioxide Molecules could really alter the Earth's climate? You do realise that the bulk of radiative forcing occurs in the first 200 ppmv of CO2 and the decay is logarithmic? We could triple pre-industrial levels and come to no harm at all. Its plant food.


    Enjoy our newly cooling (again) world. Hope its not the big one this time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 8:50pm on 24 Sep 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    "Almost all blogs enforce moderation-- otherwise the thread goes OT as is the case here. For the record, I have on occasion had posts deleted here, CP, RC, and SS. Does that make them dishonest?..." (Albatross wrote @ 186)
    ...
    Alas, I have had a post delete - just last week:
    I was asked to identify jobs where applicants were in such small supply that recruitment from overseas was essential. My list fell foul of the automatic moderator when I listed the butchering profession of (de)'b*ner'. My wife is still mystified.

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 8:58pm on 24 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #192 apdavidson

    As Albatross said earlier, as long as you find the appropriate discussion, there's no reason why they shouldn't let you outline your ideas on SS.

    Hopefully somebody will post there who can engage with you. I have to admit I don't have the background to follow your argument.

    A quick search on Miskolczi suggests that he's having difficulty getting his ideas through as well - I'm sure the people who argue with him are more sure of their position than me.

    Best of luck!

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 9:22pm on 24 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:


    #193. Dropstone

    Paul Butler Said at #147:

    But Dropstone, if there was anything in what you say, why haven't they been doing that all along?

    Err quite a lot of scientists have been trying to get around the corrupted peer review process that had been taken over by the hockey team.


    Dropstone, in your original post you said this

    "It is time the adults from Physics and Chemistry stepped in to the play room and took charge. Fun time should be over. Serious science should now step in."

    Now I can just about believe that Phil Jones and co might have had some influence in the field of climate science. But I can't see how they could have any traction with physicists and chemists, who I suspect would regard their own disciplines as vastly superior

    Surely this (also from your post)

    "You do realise that the bulk of radiative forcing occurs in the first 200 ppmv of CO2 and the decay is logarithmic?"

    would be meat and drink for the physicists who would be swift to point to the limitations of CO2 as an effective greenhouse gas

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 9:50pm on 24 Sep 2010, Albatross wrote:

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

  • 198. At 10:05pm on 24 Sep 2010, SR wrote:

    @196
    "You do realise that the bulk of radiative forcing occurs in the first 200 ppmv of CO2 and the decay is logarithmic?"

    would be meat and drink for the physicists who would be swift to point to the limitations of CO2 as an effective greenhouse gas"

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

    Many of the lead authors of the IPCC and most noteworthy contributors to 'climate change science' have a physics/chemistry background. Look up their biographies if you do not believe me. It's very easy to belittle a field but within science, there is a kind of osmosis effect causing the brightest minds to gravitate towards the most interesting unsolved problems.

    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 10:08pm on 24 Sep 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    "The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities." (Albatross @ 176)
    .
    Though not a 'high latitude GW accolyte', if I remember rightly, full-atmosphere models show that the arctic thermal environment is powerfully influenced by stratospheric circum-polar jet streams interacting with trophospere to warm the latter (process not well established). Self-evidently also, the loss of snow on sea ice powerfully influences albedo through progressive positive feedback. Many other factors (which we mostly know, on this blog), but Albatross's quote is no surprise, surely.
    .
    I can see that though arctic sea-ice melt may, in itself, be insufficient to breakdown the thermohaline stratification of the sub-arctic seas (probably would need the Greenland terrestrial ice-sheet), changing thermal equilibria may reduce the number of and power of the Greenland/Norwegian Sea funnels, thus slowing the conveyor - after that, the effects become global and multifarious.
    .
    However, my interests are in, not the causes, but the effects/opportunities:
    (i) primary enhancement: the periferal arctic seas methane clathrate releases through shallow-sea & land permafrost melt,
    (ii) secondary enhancement: anthropogenic emissions resulting from extractions of geological carbon-rich deposits made available by arctic temperature change, ... and (marginally)
    (iii) manganese (polymetallic nodule) trawling in the ice-free arctic seas. 70% seabed cover/30% Mn/1.5% Cu/1.5% Ni/0.3% Co.


    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 10:27pm on 24 Sep 2010, live4everGT wrote:

    OK it was a personal attack but he makes some good points which you don't answer:

    1. In the original article you reported that "the last 12 months have been unusually warm globally - according to Nasa, the warmest in its 130-year record."

    Why ever did you use the word "unusually"?

    It is not unusual but wholly consistent with the observed trend over the last six decades and with IPCC predictions.

    Why ever didn't you refer to anthropogenic warming at this point?

    The great majority of climatologists say this is the most likely reason for current trends in increasing global temperatures and the decreasing extent of Arctic Ice.

    2. Your email address was included in the original article; presumably you were interested in receiving readers' comments; so what's the problem?

    For my own part I was somewhat surprised by the tone of the articles and their titles.

    1. Original Article

    Why is the word 'rapid' in quote marks?

    There is no doubt that rates were rapid; it' a matter of public record.

    Why use the qualifier "- but no record"?

    The NSIDC report for 15 September 2010 tells us that this year there were indeed "record daily average ice loss rates for the Arctic as a whole for May and June". http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    2. Second Article

    Why do you use the strange term "Warmist"?

    Your definition of "warmers " as "those who believe climate change is taking us to hell in a handcart and who lobby for more urgent action on the issue", sounds to me like a colourful and accurate summary of the views of the national science academies of Brazil, China, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the UK and the USA. In their June 2009 statement they said:

    “... climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid. Feedbacks in the climate system might lead to much more rapid climate changes. The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    As a scientist myself, now a teacher, I don't expect BBC correspondents to display "ideological purity" or to give uncritical acceptance of the prevailing view; but then again I do not expect them to omit the central issue, to ignore the balance of scientific opinion, or to use inaccurate titles and pejorative labels!

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 01:35am on 25 Sep 2010, melty wrote:

    Sorry Richard, You are one of the best but Joe Romm has a point. If you omit something important from an article, isn't that way less-than-ideal? That would apply to any piece of journalism -- it is truly weird to write about the Arctic melt and not mention the cause (er, you do agree that the changes we are seeing are human-accelerated -- right?). It is like writing an article about the Deepwater Horizon disaster without mentioning that the rig was drilling for oil.

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 02:18am on 25 Sep 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    Dear Richard.

    Firstly, welcome back from vacation. I would have welcomed your return in the first blog you wrote since your hols but it was locked so quickly I never got the chance (what's up with THAT?).

    I too find it hard to believe you are only just now discovering that those who protect the warmist agenda will attack anyone who isn't exactly on message.

    Your sin was not that you stopped singing from the Church of AGW hymnsheet, it was that you were singing slightly out of tune. A grave and terrible sin that must be punished by vitriolic attack.

    The plus side is that maybe now you'll stop calling people who are sceptical of the whole AGW hypothesis deniers, flat earthers, contrarians and all the other crap we have to put up with.

    Yours, one of The Lobby, in the pay of Big Oil (I wish, I'm bloody skint :-P ).

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 09:56am on 25 Sep 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    hi Geoff at post 199
    manganese
    http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/mn.htm
    greenland icesheet
    http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/Glaciers-Ice-Sheets-and-Climate-Change.html
    methane clathrate
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
    conveyor belt
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

    I always like your posts;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 10:37am on 25 Sep 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

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

  • 205. At 11:46am on 25 Sep 2010, beesaman wrote:

    Is it just me or are some commentators, like yourself Richard, manouvering your position so that you can say you were open minded all along. I wonder now that the reality of lower temperatures, recovering Artic ice and the possibility of lower temperatures due to natural cycles are starting to sink in. I'd like the so called 'scientists' who deny free thinking to the rest of us. Will they in ten years time, or less, when the facts prove that they were wrong all along. Will they now agree to give up their overpaid positions, give back all or some of their bloated pensions. Or even just apoplogise for all the harm they have done in the wasted billions spent on so called global warming. Money that could have gone to feed the hungry, house the poor and educate our children.

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 12:13pm on 25 Sep 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

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

  • 207. At 12:48pm on 25 Sep 2010, quake wrote:

    No one has ever doubted that the Sun has something to do with Earth's climate. The evidence is good however that the Sun is a poor candidate for the warming of the past few decades.

    Schneider changed his mind because he was shown to be wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 12:50pm on 25 Sep 2010, quake wrote:

    205. At 11:46am on 25 Sep 2010, beesaman wrote:

    Re 205: "Is it just me or are some commentators, like yourself Richard, manouvering your position so that you can say you were open minded all along. I wonder now that the reality of lower temperatures, recovering Artic ice and the possibility of lower temperatures due to natural cycles are starting to sink in."

    Considering that temperatures are not dropping, that arctic ice is not recovering, ie your entire premise is wrong then the answer is No.

    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 12:52pm on 25 Sep 2010, quake wrote:

    Re 205: "I'd like the so called 'scientists' who deny free thinking to the rest of us. Will they in ten years time, or less, when the facts prove that they were wrong all along. Will they now agree to give up their overpaid positions, give back all or some of their bloated pensions."

    When the Earth keeps warming over coming decades it's comments like this that will discredit the "skeptics" from ever again being taken seriously when they bemoan scientists in the future.

    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 1:53pm on 25 Sep 2010, Sparklet wrote:

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

  • 211. At 2:09pm on 25 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

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

  • 212. At 2:22pm on 25 Sep 2010, Spanglerboy wrote:

    I am looking forward to reading Quake on the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.Should be a fascinating read.

    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 2:24pm on 25 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #205 beesaman wrote:

    I wonder now that the reality of lower temperatures ...


    Let me help you out here beesaman. You can go to the excellent wood for trees site and put a linear trend through global temperature datasets. Here's an example:

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to/plot/uah/from:1998/trend

    I can cherrypick to the max to get a falling trend. Basically this means starting with 1998, the warmest year to date.

    Every single dataset shows a rising trend. Probably not statistically significant, incidentally, but the fact is that even if you start from the warmest year to date, every single dataset shows a rising trend

    These lower temperatures of which you speak. They're not there. And that's with solar activity as low as its been for at least 30 years.


    Complain about this comment

  • 214. At 2:35pm on 25 Sep 2010, quake wrote:

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

  • 215. At 3:05pm on 25 Sep 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

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

  • 216. At 3:12pm on 25 Sep 2010, melty wrote:

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

  • 217. At 3:15pm on 25 Sep 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

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

  • 218. At 3:25pm on 25 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 219. At 4:05pm on 25 Sep 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

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

  • 220. At 4:43pm on 25 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

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

  • 221. At 5:16pm on 25 Sep 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

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

  • 222. At 6:03pm on 25 Sep 2010, Sparklet wrote:

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

  • 223. At 6:42pm on 25 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

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

  • 224. At 7:35pm on 25 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    I know its completely pointless to ask, but I'll ask anyway:

    Can somebody please tell me what's happened to the last few posts? As far as I can see none of them seem to have broken any rules.

    Complain about this comment

  • 225. At 8:12pm on 25 Sep 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    don't know paul, but most of mine have gone too - all but 1 in fact

    Complain about this comment

  • 226. At 8:31pm on 25 Sep 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #216 melty

    afraid you're wasting your time. it;s not lack of scientific data, it's lack of interest in scientific data. i'm guesiing most of the nonsense here comes from sites like watsup.com, coolerheads.com, climatecooling.com, keepyourheadinthesand.com, keepyourheadupyour...etc and it's one of these that beeswax will be headed to next.

    Complain about this comment

  • 227. At 8:50pm on 25 Sep 2010, Dropstone wrote:

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

  • 228. At 8:52pm on 25 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    Perhaps it was because somebody mentioned that old document from Sch.... you know who

    Complain about this comment

  • 229. At 9:01pm on 25 Sep 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    CIA or Connolly? lol

    Complain about this comment

  • 230. At 9:26pm on 25 Sep 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    Re: Vanishing Posts

    Yep, two of mine have disappeared too. I would seem that someone is a bit of an overactive complainer.

    Personally, I think it's got something to do with a certain large wingspanned seabird, but who knows - It's more than a little annoying though.

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 231. At 9:28pm on 25 Sep 2010, Sparklet wrote:

    Hey, what's up - doesn't the BBC allow debate now - bad enough at the Guardian - seems like the BBC has joined the.

    Complain about this comment

  • 232. At 9:37pm on 25 Sep 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Blunderbunny #230

    i don't think so. Posts have been removed from bove sides of the discussion

    Perhaps the mods are enforcing a strict on topic policy, although that doesn't explain why my post discussing this very subject has been referred

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 233. At 9:41pm on 25 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

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

  • 234. At 9:48pm on 25 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #230 blunderbunny wrote:

    Re: Vanishing Posts

    Yep, two of mine have disappeared too. I would seem that someone is a bit of an overactive complainer.


    Well some of mine have gone as well, and I'm not in the Lobby, at any rate not your Lobby. I hope they aren't doing that just to maintain 'balance'.

    In fact I'm a bit surprised we're allowed to discuss moderating policy here at all. On the Guardian site I did that and got summarily deleted!

    Complain about this comment

  • 235. At 9:55pm on 25 Sep 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

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

  • 236. At 10:08pm on 25 Sep 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

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

  • 237. At 10:09pm on 25 Sep 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    what the hell is happening with all these posts being removed?

    Complain about this comment

  • 238. At 10:09pm on 25 Sep 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Paul/Mango

    The Removals aren't completely one-sided, but they are mostly one sided. And my reason for picking on the big bird are a little odd, i'll freely admit:

    It was his use of the word "cohort" and his mentioning moderation to Barry earlier in this thread, a bit flimsy I know. But cohort's not used that much here and it was a word that I used in one of my deleted posts, just before he did and his responses to Barry seemed a little smug, there was an air of being very pleased with himself.

    Still, there you go - It's just an opinion. No real evidence, just a hunch, which I'll happily retract.

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby


    Complain about this comment

  • 239. At 10:20pm on 25 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    It would ironic if they got deleted for being off topic, since this particular topic might as well have been intended to encourage the worst kind of name calling

    Its a shame though - I just spent twenty minutes designing a reply dropstone, with links quotes and everything and all that effort has just disappeared into the aether! :-(


    But surely this discussion must be off topic as well?

    Complain about this comment

  • 240. At 10:37pm on 25 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    my 218 was totally on topic, and example of 'warmist' intolerance to a US scientist, Fred Springer, years ago. (Al Gore's staffers (I guess former VP's have the reach, even in the UK) or the usual Romm suspects, or see comment 1.

    Complain about this comment

  • 241. At 11:00pm on 25 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    Mango #236

    I'm a bit reluctant to get too involved on this thread, since I don't want to go to great lengths to get information only to have it deleted. But I'll see what I can do

    Perhaps it would be useful if you could link to one of the graphs you have in mind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 242. At 11:03pm on 25 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Well I've toned 218 down a bit
    (it was all my own opinion, however if anyone didn't like it, who are they to complain about my opinion, as it was the very topic of intolerance to debate, that I was criticising)

    I know I come across as quite passionate, Richard is shocked by 'warmist' intolerance... by email

    I have experienced it, in my local community, being called a deniar to ones face by an activist, is even more unpleasant, a Transitions Town meeting..

    Where the leader is a long standing customer of our family business, the mayor and local councillors present and other members of the local community present.

    After pointing out, why do you have graphics of a plant withering and dying, as counter goes up for CO2 levels reach 380 ppm.

    This is untrue, yes they admitted, it was just to give an impression....
    But it is NOT true... why show it.

    "WE have taken the desiscion NOT to discuss the science.."


    But what about where you say rates of warming higest in the 20th century..Look atRoger Harrabin's BBC interview, with Phil Jones, where he says that this is incorrect (ie similar rates, in previous periods)

    Not interested.. Who are you, Where are you from?

    and they want to go into local schools.....

    But try again...

    -------------------------
    218. At 3:25pm on 25 Sep 2010, you wrote: (modified)

    Like Richard Black – Jo Nova has her email address on her website/blog..

    So I emailed her a link to this article as I’m very aware of the abuse she has receveived from ‘warmists’ all the way up to establishmnet political figure..

    ‘Warmist’ intolerance, is not a surprise ‘in her experience’ I know for sure.

    I found out about Jo Nova, as I was curious when Richard Black refered to a couple of female australian blogger, as I’ve relatives in Aus… (without actually saying who – my perception of probably ’subconcious’ BBC media consensus gatekeeping)

    Following his article: (take a look at the comments,If I'd have writtten it I'm sure it would have been removed against house rules, it got a lOT of compliants, and was widely reported)

    Richard Black BBC:
    COP15: Climate ’scepticism’ and questions about sex
    Why are virtually all climate “sceptics” men?

    “..The other is that climate scepticism has psychological roots; that it stems from a deep-seated inability or unwillingness to accept the overwhelming evidence that humanity has built with coal and lubricated with oil its own handcart whose destination board reads “climate hell”.

    As one ex-scientist and now climate action advocate put it to me rather caustically a while back: “I’ve been debating the science with them for years, but recently I realised we shouldn’t be talking about the science but about something unpleasant that happened in their CHILDHOOD”.

    Thus climate sceptics are deniars/sceptics because of damaged childhood, another attempt at negative labels, to discourage people to be associated with climate sceptics..

    ……. of course, the proponents of catastrophic AGW could equally be identified as ALL men ! ……………..

    Richard listed a few men – Like “TV PRESENTER David Bellamy”…..

    Why NOT list Dr David Bellamy's scientific qualifications –

    DR David Bellamy, OBE
    (they give out OBE’s to denairs? he should be stripped of it, right away, surely, sorry sarcasm)

    ————————–
    Professor David J. Bellamy OBE. BSc., PhD., Hon:- FLS,. FIBiol., DSc., DUniv., FIBiol., FCIWEM Hon (born 1933) is an English professor, botanist, author, broadcaster and environmental campaigner.

    He attended Sutton County Grammar School, Sutton, Chelsea College of Science and Technology and Bedford College, all in London.

    He was brought up as a strict Baptist.

    Bellamy and his wife Rosemary, whom he maried when he was 19, have five children – four are adopted.

    He originally trained as a botanist at Durham University, where he later held the post of senior lecturer in botany until 1982. He is still their Honorary Preofessor for Adult and Continuing Education.

    He first came to public prominence as an envoironmental consultant at the time of the Torrey Canyon disaster.

    In 1983, he was JAILED for blockading the Franklin River in protest at a proposed dam.

    He has been the writer and presenter of some 400 television programmes on Botany, Ecology and Environment.”
    ——

    Dr David Bellamy was campaigning and being JAILED for the environment and conservation, whilst Richard Black (and George Monbiot)werevery young. He was campaigning, whilst there WAS a Big businees vested interest against, environmentalism..

    But because of his views of AGW and man made global warming, George Monbiot (Guardian), has him in a deniars Hall of Shame. The BBC’s Richard Black refer to his as a ‘TV Presenter’.

    All his environmental/conservation acheivments ignored/forgotten, unlauded, because he will not submit to the ‘consensus’

    Whether Dr Bellamy is right or wrong on AGW, (he may not come across as well in hostile debates with George Monbiot, he perhaps was far too polite), that is moot, the point is the ‘consensus’ demands that deniars are ‘anti-science’.

    Even to the point where DR Judith Curry is now being dismissed by the usual pundits as ‘failing’ as a scientist…..

    Roger Harrabin had his Al Gore moment: (3 years ago)

    “And after the interview he [Al Gore] and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of CLIMATE SCEPTIC TRAITOR.

    Jo Nova, mentions another scientists experience at the hands of Al Gore:

    “Hello, Richard, yes, exactly, and you are catching up fast on the world in 1990. Around then, an intolerant culture was established that scorned anyone who so much as asked difficult questions. Some eminent scientists were sacked. Al Gores staffers attacked Fred Singer so viperously, that he took them to court and won. But what message did that send to the world’s scientists? You can speak your doubts on the hypothesis of man-made-catastrophe, but be prepared to spend thousands on lawyers, risk your job, and lose your friends. Singer won the battle, but Al won that war.”
    At the time Al Gore was a US Senator – and became Vice -President of the USA in 1993….. A powerful message to scientist was sent.

    Yet Roger Harrabin a while back, asked sceptical bloggers for a list of sceptical scientists. Well, perhaps they were still keeping there heads down.

    Maybe Richard should give Jo Nova a call and 'investigate' whether ‘warmists’ have behaved like this for a long time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 243. At 11:06pm on 25 Sep 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    The problem is they've not actually been moderated, they've just been referred. So, they may still come back...... But by then the conversation's moved on and the post has been buried.

    Seems to be a tactic to me, rather than posts actually breaking any rules. 'Off-topicness' - is about the only one that might apply to some of the posts that have been removed.

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 244. At 11:26pm on 25 Sep 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    sensiblegrannie wrote @203:
    "hi Geoff at post 199 ..[links].... I always like your posts ;-)

    Thanks for the block of links on the topics, Grannie.

    I've been off having fun on the Nick Robinson blog today ['Ed the red crowned as labour leader'] - we can both be a bit skittish at times!
    And, quite frankly, the postings on this site once more got beyond the pale.

    Geoff.

    Complain about this comment

  • 245. At 00:00am on 26 Sep 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    Good thing I prepared for this one (Noticed that some of big birds posts now been removed too - timing's a tad suspicious - but who cares):

    @The warmist trolls

    So, what's up, with wattsup then?

    I'm sure that if you ask Anthony and you've got something interesting to say he'll let you have some guest posts. That's one of the things I like about the place, everyone is welcome so long as they play nice.
    Plus, they're winning aren't they? Which, I'm guessing is your real problem with the place. Still, it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

    As, I said before you only have to look at what's going on here as a result of Joe Romm's lot and happened to Judith Curry over at RC.
    This is not how you win a scientific discussion/argument - these are simply the tactics of the playground, they are behaving like my nephew does, when he doesn't want go to bed..... the eponymous tantrums before bedtime......

    BTW, Chaps. Great way to Bring Richard back on side, keep it up..... He’ll be back in no time ;-)

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 246. At 00:24am on 26 Sep 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    Mango #236

    Hmmm It looks as if your #236 got deleted. I'd be very interested to know why. Would Richard Black know?


    Anyway, to the subject, there's little useful I can add here, and it would be pointless anyway if it got deleted. Plus of course all the contextualising posts have been deleted as well!

    This subject of CO2 saturation is extremely complex, so its worth reading around the topic. Science of Doom's section on Saturation is a good start.

    I think the main complication as it affects our discussion is that while CO2 may be saturated at sea level (and perhaps throughout the troposphere), this does not apply further up in the atmosphere, where temps are lower and water vapour is no longer dominant. (This is why one of the predictions of AGW theory is that the tropopause will rise).

    You have to look at the fate of a parcel of energy as it travels up through various layers.

    This makes intuitive sense - at least as far as I'm concerned :-). Radiated heat will continue to rise until it encounters a level where it is blocked by CO2 (or some other gas) which is not already saturated.

    Hopefully I can get my head around some more of it and come back later.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.