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

Copenhagen or Babel? A climate conundrum

Richard Black | 11:32 UK time, Tuesday, 16 November 2010

It's the time of year when an environment correspondent's thoughts turn inevitably to the UN climate summit.

A little less than a year after filing into the frozen wasteland of Copenhagen's Bella Center, we're looking this year to the sunnier climes of Cancun in Mexico.

Already the wordplay is being sharpened: rather than (No)-Hopenhagen, are we talking about Cancan, Cancan't, or Cancouldawouldashoulda?

Human chain protest on island

Cancun should not be the end of the UN climate road, activists insisted earlier this month

While UN officialdom begins its attempts to manage expectations, editors in news organisations (including this one) are asking how they should cover the summit, what readers/listeners/viewers might be interested in, and how to place Cancun in a historical landscape transmuted by Copenhagen.

There may be some useful thoughts in a new report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (RISJ) at Oxford University, in partnership with the British Council.

Written by former BBC correspondent and editor James Painter, Summoned By Science surveys how news organisations around the world reported climate change during those two tumultuous weeks.

Among the findings is that less than 10% of articles (from the media groups and countries surveyed) majored on climate science, the overwhelming majority focussing on the political dramas played out in the conference halls.

And what of "Climategate", the heat surrounding the batch of e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit immediately before the summit?

Countless thousands of words since have been written about this incident, and the fallout from it - notably by Fred Pearce in his thorough, readable and provocative book The Climate Files.

For James, the question is whether the media gave too much or too little prominence to the e-mails during the Copenhagen summit.

His conclusion: far too much was made of the episode by certain publications in certain countries, but almost exclusively in English.

Expanding that notion, he concludes that in the developing world, the voices of "sceptics" or "deniers" were hardly heard at all.

It might depend how you define such terms, of course.

Wind turbines on row of houses

Climate journalism has been buffeted by powerful winds over the last year

Across the entire piece, the most widely quoted group of people - as you'd expect - was the political leaders of countries engaged in the talks, and some of them would fit comfortably inside a working definition of "climate-sceptical".

Nevertheless, it's an intriguing conclusion - especially set alongside the finding that the countries with the biggest volume of Copenhagen coverage were Brazil and India, while Brazil and China gained the distinction of each dispatching more than 100 journalists to the talks.

For what it's worth, I don't agree with the view that there was too little science in Copenhagen reporting.

The time for science was surely beforehand, in painting the background; something we had been doing for years.

At Copenhagen itself, there was so much politics that articles were already bursting at the seams; after all, the entire summit was predicated on appreciation across the political scene that the basics of the science were settled, "Climategate" or no.

Whatever you make of these conclusions, the question for many of us is how best to proceed.

As the report notes, there is evidence of "climate fatigue" among audiences, and even among editors.

Some editors, judging by comments in the report, were persuaded by "Climategate" that the entire edifice of climate science was a crock, and have chosen to cast an already "difficult" subject out of their news pages and programmes.

Yet the fundamental reason for reporting climate change - because it threatens major changes to our lives, and the prospects of future generations - endures.

Summoned By Science discusses all kinds of potential remedies, from greater scientific understanding among journalists to higher awareness among scientists about how to use social media to disseminate findings.

The debate is, in truth, a pale shadow of the one that has been going on within science itself in the wake of the numerous inquiries into "Climategate", and the UN-commissioned review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But it may be just as important, given that the mass media remains the most significant conduit for information on the issue.

With Cancun about to dawn, this is an ideal time for some new ideas.

Over to you.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 12:40pm on 16 Nov 2010, Lordofpie wrote:

    I think unfortunately it is not just editors who are getting "climate fatigue" - I think the public are also, becoming too tired of the whole climate talks process being seen as a finger pointing pledge dodging agreement between China and the US, or convinced by bloggers and 'unbiased' news reports showing minority views and unproved arguments that climate science is flawed or we don't know enough. And the waters have been so muddied by money to be made/lost on the back of climate change that in the end the whole thing can be seen as a way of governments raising taxes or companies gaining market share, detracting from the whole issue that as a species, we should probably try not to change the climate too much as this historically leads to bad things.
    The best thing that could come from Cancun or anywhere is a renewed interest in environmentalism from the entire population of the world, especially those that pollute the most. But until things start going noticeably and provably wrong, that won’t happen.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 12:43pm on 16 Nov 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    Well I've an idea for you, let's ignore my sceptical views for the minute. If you really want people to take you seriously, you should stop jetting off round the world to various places to have conferences on climate change.

    You should be using teleconferencing or just have a single headquarters somewhere, where all of the required infrastructure can be put permanently in place. To sit and lecture the rest of us on our carbon fooooooooot prints, whilst clocking up a huge one, in the name of saving the planet is hypocritical in the extreme.

    You've already got UN offices in New York, why can't you make use of those facilities?

    Better still, build a single headquarters somewhere you wouldn't want to go on holiday and go there, Bradford for instance (Apologies to any Residents of Bradford, but you have to admit it's not a world wide tourist mecca).

    Left as it is, it just looks like a gravy train - Jolly jaunts for the boys, so to speak.

    Better still, cancel the lot of it and just spend the money on alleviating hunger, disease and protecting bio-diversity and jobs a good’un as far as I’m concerned.

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 1:08pm on 16 Nov 2010, Wolfiewoods wrote:

    Journalists can try to influence public opinion, and I am glad to see that you Richard are sticking to your guns unlike many others, but what to do about "climate fatigue" and what do the public know anyway? Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is the biggest threat to mankind and democracy is the biggest impediment to saving mankind, democracy must be put on hold until this one is fixed, and perhaps a few more big problems need to be fixed at the same time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 1:19pm on 16 Nov 2010, DemelzaS wrote:

    I wholeheartedly agree with blunderbunny, what is wrong with using video conferencing to hold these talks!!

    I think that maybe we should stop concerntrating on climate science as there will always be two sides to every argument but concentrate on sustainability.

    Surely an energy source that is free and continual, is better than raping the earth for the extraction of fossil fuels. Regardless of the obvious carbon emission benefits, a source fuel that is free and not damaging to extract SURELY has to be a better option?

    Secondly, what about security of supply? is noone cocerned that as a country we are reliant on Georgia/Russia for our oil? this is a hostage situation waiting to happen!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 1:27pm on 16 Nov 2010, Smiffie wrote:

    Richard is only just back his Japanese holiday and already he is getting ready for another one. My holiday was a fairly low carbon week at the Great Dorset Steam Fair – my favourite form of passive smoking.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 1:47pm on 16 Nov 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    With Cancun about to dawn, this is an ideal time for some new ideas.

    How about taking a leaf out of the ABC's Margot O'Neill book:

    Many journalists say the UEA email hacking, combined with the discovery of an error regarding the melting of the Himalayan glaciers in the 2007 report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), also proved they had failed to cast a critical enough eye on climate science and that they had been far too dismissive of sceptics.
    Probably the most important reaction to the UEA hacking for journalists was in their own newsrooms, among their own editors who are the gatekeepers controlling if your work appears and how prominently. While some UK surveys show no dramatic loss of credibility for climate scientists with the public, here's how some senior journalists described what it was like in their newsrooms after hacking:
    "dirty looks"
    "sense of betrayal"
    thought we'd "gone native"
    "you told me the science was settled - and it isn't!"
    "Climate-gate was extremely damaging in many ways. It gave the impression that journalists had been duped. I think in the end it was mountains out of mole-hills but it looked really bad," said a print journalist.


    Journalists being duped? Isn’t this what happens when they print press releases instead of checking stories before printing them?
    This next line is simply ridiculous. Does Margot really expect insurance companies to do anything other than make money from selling fear?

    If the scientists and insurance companies are right, it will produce increasing horror temperature, drought and precipitation events as well as more natural catastrophes.

    http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2010/11/03/3056199.htm

    And what of "Climategate", the heat surrounding the batch of e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit immediately before the summit?

    Shouldn’t that be “allegedly” or have there been convictions?

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 3:41pm on 16 Nov 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    The politics dicate what what happen with the science. the science continues as does the politics. Countries with large debts can do little as their priorities are taking care of the bankers.
    In spite of all this there is a slow and steady adaptation of alternative energies. Step by step the transformation is taking place. People drive the system and the politicians only jump out front and take credit for things they passively support or oppose. Coal and oil will wither away over time. China will be confronted with the realities of their environmental disasters and their growth in automobile sales will only make their problems worse. Once alternative fuel companies have enough resources to purchase leglislators things will take on more momentum. It is like the steam engine.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 3:44pm on 16 Nov 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    With regards to Climate Fatigue, those in the pro-AGW camp only have themselves to blame. If they'd behaved like scientists first, rather than politicians and propagandists, they might still have some credibility left. As it is, they’ve chosen their battles poorly, cried wolf too often and, disappointingly, relied on ad hominem attacks all too frequently.

    Richard - You’ve experienced their ire all too recently, yourself. Thanks to the machinations of a certain Mr. Romm and you didn’t even stray off message that much, you just neglected to mention man made global warming as a cause in one of your pieces.

    Further to the same point, you only have to look at the terrible way that they treated Dr. Curry, when she deigned to suggest that re-engaging with sceptics might be a good idea.

    I'm left wondering what your thoughts are on all of this?

    Sadly, for the cause of science at least, these people are more concerned with their own vested interests (Academic Credibility, Grant Money etc etc) than they are the well being of the planet or the advancement of climate science as a whole.

    Still, as I’ve said before "The Truth will out" - Phil Jones, even seemed to suggest to Nature that there may be a Climategate Mark II being prepared especially for Cancun.

    So, I guess that might liven things up a bit for you ;-)

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 5:07pm on 16 Nov 2010, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Some new ideas??

    what about the likes of Greenpeace WWF FOTE etc being permanently ditched? These organisations are not representative of any views but their own self-important misanthropy. Their influence on policy is completely out of step with their democratic mandate. There is no chance of overcoming the general public's climate fatigue whilst these loonie toons have the ear of the IPCC.

    Big coal and big oil have actually done more to benefit mankind than the eco noodles so why not get ExxonMobil to run the show from here on in?

    another of and in the lobby - too drunk to stand up. Hic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 6:03pm on 16 Nov 2010, quake wrote:

    Lets just look at the terrible way skeptics have treated scientists.

    Skeptics have made too many false claims, backed too many sloppy scientific accusations and generally failed to police themselves. Monctkon. Ian Plimer. Need I say more.

    Overall that is why they've lost credibility. Funding links with thinktanks and lobbiest is the least of their problems. Many of them aren't even funded, it's ideological.

    Maybe if they had been honest about the climate issue rather than giving space to silly ideas and conspiracy theories and general doubt manufacturing things could have been different.

    Future generations in a much warmer world will look back on this period, with all it's skeptical induced not-the-ipcc "cooling" predictions with bafflement. One thing I am quite sure of is that whatever word is used to describe skeptics in the future, it won't be "skeptics".

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 6:38pm on 16 Nov 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    @4. At 1:19pm on 16 Nov 2010, DemelzaS wrote:

    Surely an energy source that is free and continual, is better than raping the earth for the extraction of fossil fuels. Regardless of the obvious carbon emission benefits, a source fuel that is free and not damaging to extract SURELY has to be a better option?

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

    Unfortunately unicorn tears are difficult to harvest.

    As for the Cancun conference, just another waste of time and money. At least this time they're not even bothering to pretend they want to do anything more than have an excuse for a two week jolly. Cancun indeed...

    One of the (increasingly crowded) Lobby.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 7:59pm on 16 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    "Yet the fundamental reason for reporting climate change - because it threatens major changes to our lives, and the prospects of future generations - endures."

    So you say... without any actual evidence except bogus predictions. This emporer has no clothes.

    So Richard, hope you enjoy yet another - hopefully the last - lavish eco-crisis (climate division)sales convention at a beach resort... for the children of course.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 8:07pm on 16 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #6. MangoChutneyUKOK quoted "the ABC's Margot O'Neill book:

    This next line is simply ridiculous. Does Margot really expect insurance companies to do anything other than make money from selling fear?

    "If the scientists and insurance companies are right, it will produce increasing horror temperature, drought and precipitation events as well as more natural catastrophes."

    Ridiculous indeed! Like the 'trick' of comparing hurricanes by their financial costs while ignoring the fact that there is more to damage in their paths now. In any case, great way for these companies to raise rates as you say.

    My issue is with this 'trick': "If the scientists..."

    Which scientists, exactly?

    This falsely implies that all "the" scientists agree, which was never true and is getter more false by the day.

    The braindead seem to think that there is something that could be called "the" science, revealing that they have no clue what science actually is.

    Of course "the journalists" all agree with me.




    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 8:13pm on 16 Nov 2010, izeezee wrote:

    What a year has passed since Copenhagen:

    Most likely the hottest year on record.

    Lowest ice volume in the arctic on record.

    Hottest temps across middle east on record.

    Coral bleaching, droughts, deepest depression on record in the USA.

    Things are starting to happen very quickly now and it looks like the IPCC has been very conservative in its outlook. I would not be surprised
    if the most accurate prediction they made turns out to be that the Himalaya glaciers do melt by 2035.

    The only way out for the deniers is if Sarah Palin runs on a ticket saying AGW stands for almighty wrath of god and that what the climate scientists are finding was put there by god to test our faith. The real cause she will say is having gay people in the military of course.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 8:26pm on 16 Nov 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    TV licence ............. £145.50
    Holiday in Cancun... priceless

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 8:44pm on 16 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Jack Hughes #15

    Yeah. Looks like whoever the "single correspondent" is will be working very long days to cover for lack of colleagues. Doesn't sound much of a holiday to me.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/14/chilean-miners-bbc-cancun-climate-talks

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 9:03pm on 16 Nov 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 18. At 9:05pm on 16 Nov 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Hi Jane,

    If Richard really believed this climate nonsense he would stay at home and cover the event by video link.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 9:11pm on 16 Nov 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    coment 6:

    The ABC news article had this quote as well:

    "Where did all the climate change stories go? "The [programmers] are against it because it loses ratings," says a senior BBC journalist. "The wave [of public interest] has gone. There is climate change fatigue. That is why I am not [reporting] it now."

    Other journalists agree. Even reporters at The Guardian, which especially targets environmental reporting, complain that it's difficult to get a run. Another UK broadcast journalist said he was warned that putting climate change on prime time would risk losing a million viewers. "

    and this one, I wonder if that is why the BBC reporting of Cancun won't have hordes of BBC journalists sunning themselves on expenses at Cancun?

    Why not Slough?

    "Now, a key BBC news manager has declared that climate science "isn't quite a settled question"; and the BBC Trust is investigating the impartiality of science reporting including on climate change and including whether sceptical views are given due airing. "

    http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2010/11/03/3056199.htm

    Have the BBC gone 'native'

    Bishoip Hill seems to think so... (The BBC of course had good intentions, but..)

    Submission to the BBC science review
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/11/16/submission-to-the-bbc-science-review.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 9:17pm on 16 Nov 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Does Richard Black no something the police don't

    "heat surrounding the batch of e-mails stolen from the "

    as the investigation is still ongoing, and there is no eveidence that they were stolen, the most likley case. AS FRED PEARCE reported in his book, that Richard mentions, is that there will be no one to arrest, ie a leak....

    Presumably Richard hsa read Fred's book..

    so why spin 'stolen emails'...

    They were stolen don't look didn't work for the MP's when they tried that line on the expenses scandal....


    As someone forwarded some of the climategate emeils to Paul Hudson(BBC), (the ones where he was mentioned - 6or 7), OVER a month before the leak, it look like an inside job to me, by someone with a conscience - not stolen..

    Perhaps Richard could ask Paul (his BBC colleague) who sent him those emails.... ie it could have been a party to the emails to know about them, the hacker or the whistleblower (same person could be all three)

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 9:25pm on 16 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #14. izeezee wrote:

    "What a year has passed since Copenhagen:

    Most likely the hottest year on record."

    False.

    "Lowest ice volume in the arctic on record."

    False.

    "Hottest temps across middle east on record."

    Dubious. But too vague. Where exactly?

    "Coral bleaching, droughts, deepest depression on record in the USA."

    Oh, sweet. Blame the US economic problems of the Global Warming fantasy.

    And there have never been droughts before, honest.

    Tooooo funny.

    I blame everything on Iraqi WMDs.


    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 9:27pm on 16 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    18. Jack Hughes wrote:

    "If Richard really believed this climate nonsense he would stay at home and cover the event by video link."

    The cocktails just don't go down as well via video.


    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 10:28pm on 16 Nov 2010, izeezee wrote:

    CD @ 21

    Sorry I was not clear there @ 14, I meant weather depression not financial.

    As regards highest record temps it was Cairo, Kuwait and Baghdad amongst others.

    Yes it looks like hottest year on record so far, not hard to find this out.

    Yes lowest ice volume, not hard to find this out.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 10:40pm on 16 Nov 2010, spectrum wrote:

    Richard Black

    Anyone who supports global warming is nothing more than a mouthpiece for big oil .


    James Hansen

    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

  • 25. At 10:55pm on 16 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Jack Hughes #18

    Nice idea. But it would only work as journalism if the participating politicians and diplomats were doing the same. So I think that decision is outside of the BBC's control.

    (Note, yes I can see that getting the participating politicians and diplomats to do it over a video link would be a good idea, and might even work as politics.)

    PS, do we know that it will be Richard Black going?

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 11:10pm on 16 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    23. izeezee wrote:

    "Yes lowest ice volume, not hard to find this out."

    Here's what the actual data shows.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/14/sea-ice-news-29/

    Hope you're not worried about polar bears and rising sea levels too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 11:29pm on 16 Nov 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @quake

    Whilst this might be anecdotal, most of the ad hominem attacks that I’ve witnessed in the blogosphere have been perpetrated by the pro-AGW side of the argument. You’ve only got to look at what happened to Richard on this very blog and to Judith over on RC.

    The terms denier/contrarian are ad hominem attacks in themselves.....

    Anything to say about that?

    Plus, I could simply re-word, some of your post:

    “Climate Scientists have made too many false claims, backed too many sloppy scientific accusations and generally failed to police themselves. Mann, Hansen, Jones. Need I say more? Overall that is why they've lost credibility.”


    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 11:47pm on 16 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    25. Jane

    What does "journalism" have to do with it?

    That word suggests objectivity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 11:55pm on 16 Nov 2010, Daviid_Dublin wrote:

    With regard to impartiality, I presume you have read this?

    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/bbc-science-review-submission-final.pdf

    The submission begins thus:

    Submission to the Review of Impartiality and Accuracy
    of the BBC’s Coverage of Science
    From
    Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) and Tony Newbery (Harmless Sky)
    www.bishop-hill.net www.harmlesssky.org
    Background
    1) During the last five years, anthropogenic global warming has occupied an
    increasingly important place in UK public policy and international politics. It is
    inevitable and appropriate that the BBC should have devoted considerable time and
    effort to covering this topic. It is acknowledged that this is a complex, highly
    charged, and polarised subject, and that maintaining impartiality and accuracy while
    reporting on the scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming presents very
    real challenges. Nothing in this submission should be interpreted as suggesting that
    the BBC’s task has been an easy one. However no difficulties the Corporation has
    faced in this respect absolve it from the legal obligations imposed by The Charter,
    The Agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport (2006) or the
    Communications Act (2003).
    Where there have been failings, it is essential that these should be publicly identified
    by the current review, their consequences addressed and where necessary rectified.
    Only by this process can the BBC’s reputation be maintained.
    2)

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 11:57pm on 16 Nov 2010, izeezee wrote:

    CD @ 26

    Volume CD volume.

    Whatsupwiththat don't talk about volume because they know they would be on thin ice. They do admit the temp is above what it should be however.

    I find them a bit poor myself prefer other sights of which there are many if you google arctic sea ice volume.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 00:17am on 17 Nov 2010, andrew9999 wrote:

    Canadian Rockies
    #26

    I'm a bit mystified about your wuwt link, according to Mr Watts "At present the ice growth is tracking just below the rate of 2007" that is 2007 when artic sea ice area was at a record minimum?
    Obviously there is now more ice than in the summer but perhaps not to Mr Watts.

    As for the record hot year were having here's a link to sceptic Roy Spencer website about it
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/11/oct-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-42-deg-c/
    According to his satellite temperature data November is tracking at a hot record everyday so far.
    Of course you can also look at NCDC state of the climate report but you wont believe that. The Met office predicted this record hot year with a anomaly of 0.61C for crutemp so you will be able to see how that pans out.

    Pakistan in May recorded the hottest temperature ever recorded in Asia a staggering 53.5C.
    Here's a link to Jeff Masters blog on weather underground with the other temperature records this year.
    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1559&tstamp=

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 00:28am on 17 Nov 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @JaneBasingstoke

    Nope, don't think we (well, myself at least) know who's going. But I'd guess it's a toss up between Richard or Roger.

    Not a big Gurniad reader, so the leaked BBC Cancun memo was news to me.

    Who do you think should be going?

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 00:30am on 17 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    27. Blunderbunny

    Here's more of the AGW gang discrediting themselves.

    http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/the-recovery-of-phil-jones-back-to-the-future/

    30. izeezee wrote:

    "Volume CD volume."

    Really. Perhaps you would like to provide a link that explains that in detail, with reliable data.

    The trend has turned and as usual, short term trends cannot be extrapolated into long term ones as the AGW gang attempted. The same kind of thinking assured everyone in the US that real estate prices could only go up, based on a short term trend. Tends to fool most short term thinkers.

    "Whatsupwiththat... do admit the temp is above what it should be however."

    No they don't. That would be stupid. There is no temp which "should be." There is only constant change. Anyone who would suggest that change can be stopped is delusional or deceitful or both.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 00:40am on 17 Nov 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @izeezee

    You do realise that the volumes are only modelled, don't you?

    (Monty Python, Patsy and Camelot come to mind)

    Plus, it's ice - this is an interglacial period - It's supposed to melt!

    It's when it stops melting, now that's the time to worry.

    One of the Vestibule ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 00:42am on 17 Nov 2010, oldterry2 wrote:

    in 10 quake wrote:
    "Maybe if they had been honest about the climate issue rather than giving space to silly ideas and conspiracy theories and general doubt manufacturing things could have been different."

    Sceptics not being honest - surely you jest.

    The physics is quite simple - the additional energy from the extra CO2 is way too small to cause the observed temperature rise. Note that we are not saying that the temperature isn't rising - just that CO2 is NOT the primary driver.

    Even the Royal Society agrees - in their revised report on climate change science they state that the temperature rise due to CO2 is 0.4C (para 29).

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 00:46am on 17 Nov 2010, ChangEngland wrote:

    Misfortune and Chaos,
    Grief and Destruction.
    The works of Dreaming evil,
    and the joy of unholiness.
    No soul was left alone,
    in the mayhem of the human race,
    "Hahahahaa!!!. Let us
    joy. Let us dance!!!"
    So they danced their macabre dances.

    "Now is the Victory ours!"
    "Let us dance the dance of Immortals"
    They shrieked, as they marched
    Up and down the hills,
    In the sighing face of earth.

    Your blog is lost Richard; shame on us all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 00:59am on 17 Nov 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Andrew999

    It's not record hot year as yet:

    "Here are the 1998 and 2010 averages for January 1st through October 31:

    1998 +0.57
    2010 +0.54

    Note that the difference between the two is not statistically significant…just symbolically."

    Please try to get your facts right.

    Regards,

    One of the Hall

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 01:36am on 17 Nov 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Andrew999

    So, where's the rest of the heat then?

    There have been 12 years of fairly static temps, whilst the apparent prime climate driver has been steadily increasing, discuss?

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 08:59am on 17 Nov 2010, Simonm wrote:

    Climate change fatigue? The public not interested? I'm not surprised when we have Xfactor and Strictly! I don't know what their equivalents are in Europe or the USA, but in the west, surely "Public concern about Climate Change" is largely a contradiction, especially when a TV gameshow might get more interaction from "paying" voters when compared to the far more important free democratic elections that define the course of our politics and economy.

    While I have every respect for the people within a democratic decision making process, there are so many contradictions within Climate Change that it is surely better to not pay too much attention to the media that both guides and reflects the public view.

    This winter might be the worst on record, this year might be the hottest, with a rotten wet summer, so what do the public (in the west) remember? Certainly not rising temperatures and I doubt that many are aware of the email fiasco - overall, so what about climate change! Meanwhile the Sunderbunds are being drowned by raising sea levels.

    My overall solution, education! But then how do you compete with Xfactor?

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 09:16am on 17 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    Firstly Richard:
    "the heat surrounding the batch of e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit"

    Either provide proof that these emails were stolen or change this statment. It is a deliberate flasehood by yourself and dishonest. They emails were alleged to be stolen and zero proof thusfar has been provided to support that assertion, it is equally possible that they were leaked. I am passed believing that this was a mistake on your part. Please change it.

    @ blunderbunny
    "one of the vestibule" lol

    The climate changed 100 years ago. it changed 200 years ago, it changed 1000 years ago, humans not only survived, they thrived.

    Also

    "Plus, it's ice - this is an interglacial period - It's supposed to melt!
    It's when it stops melting, now that's the time to worry"
    very good point.

    re- the Topic of Richards post.

    It would seem that even the prime minister is begining to hedge his bets re cancouldawouldashoulda. Now, all we need to do is ditch the 'green' jobs premise that's about to ruin our economy and we're set.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 09:43am on 17 Nov 2010, Bryn wrote:

    It seems so pointless posting a message here. Those who do not wish AGW to exist will find whatever justification they can among the happy community of the self-deluded. For reasons I cannot fathom they think it does not matter that the temperatures are rising, the ice melting and oceans acidifying - which seems so strange since it is their chlidren and grandchildren who will have to deal with the consequences. Since much of the evidence is simple and stark they propose that evidence itself is somehow a doubtful commodity as the only possible justification for their irrational beliefs. Having been inclined to laugh at the bizarre arguments for inaction on GHG emmisions for the last few years I am increasingly inclined to cry.
    But the laughs keep coming - so I will occasionally laugh as well.
    OldTerry2 #35 takes todays biscuit by stating that "The physics is quite simple - the additional energy from the extra CO2 is way too small to cause the observed temperature rise. Note that we are not saying that the temperature isn't rising - just that CO2 is NOT the primary driver.
    Even the Royal Society agrees - in their revised report on climate change science they state that the temperature rise due to CO2 is 0.4C (para 29)"
    Indeed the pressure of my foot on the accelerator of my car is incapable of propelling it to 5MPH, let alone to the 100MPH it is capable of. But that's not how it works because there is a mechanism connecting the pressure of my foot to the workings of the engine. Likewise, there are simple positive feedbacks which amplify the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    So lets see what the Royal Society actually say shall we? "A climate forcing of 1.6 Wm-2 (see previous paragraph) would, in this hypothetical case, lead to a globally averaged surface warming of about 0.4oC. However, as will be discussed in paragraph 36, it is expected that the actual change, after accounting for the additional processes,will be greater than this.
    And paragraph 36 says "... the overall climate sensitivity (for a hypothetical doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is likely to lie in the range 2oC to 4.5oC; this range is mainly due to the difficulties in simulating the overall effect of the response of clouds to climate change mentioned earlier."
    So why didn't you include this bit Terry?
    Now my guess, Terry, is that you'll tell me how little regard you have for climate models and predictions. It's what we usually get next - but this makes no sense. Modelling is used in science because it is useful and successful in representing the real world. In fact we have two predicitons. You predict little change in the global energy balance due to human activity, the atmospheric scientists predict significantly more. Thus, since we have added a load of CO2 to the atmosphere you have to provide a plausible model to exlain why that will not lead to positive feedbacks through water vapour (among other effects). The atmospheric scientists need to have plausible models as to why it will - which they do.
    But, sadly, you probably won't oblige.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 09:46am on 17 Nov 2010, quake wrote:

    Someone hacked into the mail server and stole the emails. That's theft whether it's external or internal. It is a breach of the computer misuse act and as such is a crime. Maybe richard should refer to them as a criminally aquired as well as stolen.

    Don't forget originally the RC site was hacked and the emails posted there, which strongly suggests this isn't an insider by a coordinated theft from the outside. When the RC gambit didn't work they posted them on various skeptic sites instead, masking their identity by using a russian IP.

    Everything points to external theft, not an internal leak. It would be stealing either way.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 09:49am on 17 Nov 2010, quake wrote:

    Re 35:
    "The physics is quite simple - the additional energy from the extra CO2 is way too small to cause the observed temperature rise. Note that we are not saying that the temperature isn't rising - just that CO2 is NOT the primary driver."

    The physics shows that doubling CO2 causes 1.5C-4.5C warming. That would make it a primary driver given that even 1.5C is twice the warming that happened in the 20th century. Such an effect when we double CO2 (a matter of when not if) will make it the dominant temperature change and as such the driver.

    "Even the Royal Society agrees"

    No they agree with my statement. The charney sensitivity is what comes from the physics. You are confusing that with the amount of warming to date. We haven't reached a doubling of co2 yet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 09:54am on 17 Nov 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #6 mangochutney

    "Shouldn’t that be “allegedly” or have there been convictions?"

    nonsense, if someone grabs my watch and runs off it's been stolen whether the crook is caught and convicted or not.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 09:54am on 17 Nov 2010, quake wrote:

    Note that the UAH satellite record 12 month running mean topped a record earlier this year, and that's without an el nino as powerful as 1998 and we are in a deep solar minimum. We've certainly warmed up since 1998 if we are reaching 1998 levels with lesser el ninos and a solar minimum.

    After this La Nina has passed we'll probably see a large jump in temperature because the solar cycle is now on the increase meaning it's contributing to ghg warming rather than taking a bite out of it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 09:58am on 17 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100063937/why-the-bbc-cannot-be-trusted-on-climate-change-the-full-story/

    any comments richard?

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 10:03am on 17 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @41
    "Modelling is used in science because it is useful and successful in representing the real world. In fact we have two predicitons."

    Erm. no it isn't. It's used in engineering, in tightly defined circumstances. It's used to model newtonian effects in physics, again tightly controlled criteria. to model an as yet unknown chaotic potentially non linear system? not a chance.

    @ quake
    "It would be stealing either way."
    Hmm. interestnig point, i had not considered that. I suppose it could technically be classed as stelaing if it were a leak, however the legal issue would be breaking confidentiality or internal IT policies not an actual prosecution for theft.

    though, interesting point.



    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 10:13am on 17 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 45 quake.

    If that were to happen that would certainly be a big indication to me that i may need re-look at my position. There may obviously be other factors at play (isn't there always) and you'd have to isolate the co2 warming from the natural, but it would be certainly worth a very hard look.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 10:14am on 17 Nov 2010, rossglory wrote:

    Below are a list of pretty stunning scientific papers published last year (http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/15/year-in-climate-science-climategate/).

    The BBC did a pretty good job of covering them but from what I can tell they've hardly entered mass consciousness at all. Whether it's reader or editor fatigue or something else, it certainly vindicate's Kolbert's pessimistic view "It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.”

    1. Nature: "Global warming blamed for 40% decline in the ocean’s phytoplankton"
    2. Science: Vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores destabilizing and venting
    3. Must-read NCAR analysis warns we risk multiple, devastating global droughts even on moderate emissions path
    4. Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred and Geological Society: Acidifying oceans spell marine biological meltdown by end of century
    5. Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100
    6. Royal Society: There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record.
    7. Science: Drought drives decade-long decline in plant growth
    8. Nature review of 20 years of field studies finds soils emitting more CO2 as planet warms
    9. Global Warming: Future Temperatures Could Exceed Livable Limits, Researchers Find
    10. UK Met Office: Catastrophic climate change, 13-18°F over most of U.S. and 27°F in the Arctic, could happen in 50 years, but we do have time to stop it if we cut greenhouse gas emissions soon.

    Add to these the recent news that the IEA has finally accepted that peak oil has been and gone and the days of cheap oil are over and you can see why there is so much time and effort invested to ensure the "masses" are kept ill-informed and confused.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 10:25am on 17 Nov 2010, Bryn wrote:

    Blunderbunny #37 and #38
    If only it were true!
    Here are the 1996 and 2010 averages:
    1996 +0.29
    2010 +0.54
    or
    1995 +0.37
    2010 +0.54
    or
    1996 +0.23
    2010 +0.54
    You see? we can all pick our dates if we want. And, sure, the rise has slowed. You might want to think about why the climate warms and cools over annual-decade intervals and the effect of that on a longer-term trend. There has been quite a bit of work on this kind of stuff. And, you know, numbers and everything, since you seem persuaded by numbers.
    Here are the two-decade averages back to 1890:
    Anomaly End year
    -0.26 1900
    -0.28 1920
    -0.10 1940
    0.00 1960
    0.00 1980
    0.25 2000
    0.44 2010
    When you add CO2 to an atmosphere it gets warmer. We added CO2 to our atmosphere and - look! - it's getting warmer.
    Would you care to comment on why you picked 1998? And the statistical significance of the 1996-2010 difference? I wonder why you picked the data you wanted to reinforce your argument rather than challenging your argument itself? Or is that too much like - er - science?
    I would so like to believe you are right but sadly you aren't.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 10:43am on 17 Nov 2010, jazbo wrote:

    Ah excellent, after the boredom of biodiversity, Richard gets back to climate just in time for his second publically-funded holiday of the year.

    Richard, stolen emails? Allegedly would surely be the word a journalist should add to that statement as unless I have missed something nothing has been proven. There is just as much evidence that those emails were found bundled up on a public FTP server.

    Perhaps you could ask your colleague where he received his copies from?

    As for this comment:

    14. At 8:13pm on 16 Nov 2010, izeezee wrote:

    What a year has passed since Copenhagen:

    Most likely the hottest year on record.

    Lowest ice volume in the arctic on record.

    Hottest temps across middle east on record.

    Coral bleaching, droughts, deepest depression on record in the USA.


    The records are those with THIRTY years or less of reliable date. The planet is billions of years old. Stop believing the panic stories.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 10:47am on 17 Nov 2010, apdavidson wrote:

    Last February I set out to establish what was wrong with climate science. As it's 40 years since my PhD and I worked 30 years on technologies to prepare for CAGW, I'm well qualified.

    There's a fundamental error from 1974 when to predict cloud albedo, Lacis and Hansen at GISS modified a general equation for the optical physics of aerosols from Sagan. The formulation apparently used directly or indirectly in all the climate models, assumes constant 'Mie asymmetry factor', impossible because Mie derived it for a plane wave, only true when the wave first enters the cloud. It also ignores substantial direct backscattering at the upper cloud surface: a shielding effect.

    In AR4, a statistically-insignificant median 0.4 W/m^2 bare CO2 signal is bumped up to 1.6 W/m^2 by 'global dimming' yet the 0.7 W/m^2 'cloud albedo correction' is imaginary. Because you have to change the models, the IPCC's predictions of CO2-AGW are at least a factor of 3 too high.

    Furthermore, because the shielding is reduced by aerosol pollution, instead of 'cloud albedo effect' cooling, it's heating, another form of AGW and self-limiting. That's a game changer. True AGW may well be mostly from this effect and it could explain why according to ocean heat capacity, global warming stopped in 2003 and Trenberth has since been fretting over the 'missing 0.7 W/m^2'.

    As for CO2-AGW, radiosonde data show reduction of upper troposphere humidity. Because the fall in the IR absorption by water vapour counters the increase due to CO2, the net effect has been low. Miskolczi predicts constant IR optical depth for a water planet independent of [CO2].

    After experiment couldn't prove 'cloud albedo effect' cooling, about 2003, NASA websites claim polluted clouds 'reflect up to 90% of incoming light' because of enhanced 'reflection' from greater water surface area in polluted clouds. That's fake physics.

    To conclude, the IPCC's claims of high CO2-AGW in AR4 are baseless. Real AGW may have been an increase in light transmission by polluted clouds, possibly from Asian globalisation ['Asian Brown Cloud']. It may now have switched off. AR4 included data known to be wrong. Time for an inquiry.

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 10:57am on 17 Nov 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    Sorry about this, these are from different posts:

    @Bryn_hill #41

    "Likewise, there are simple positive feedbacks which amplify the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere."

    @quake #43:

    "The physics shows that doubling CO2 causes 1.5C-4.5C warming."

    There's a problem with both of these statements. The first is that there's no evidence for the feedbacks being positive. There are plenty of assumptions, but no evidence, indeed all the evidence so far points to slightly negative feedbacks not positive ones. The main bug bears are clouds/water vapour - all the balloon measurements tend to indicate a negative feedback(Paltridge et al 2009), whilst satellite data might indicate positive ones(Dessler 2010). I guess you can take your pick, but personally I'd go for direct measurement, rather than inferred ones.

    Moving on,

    The physics only shows that a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of 1.5-4.5C, if you include relatively strong to strong positive feedbacks and therein lies the rub.

    There's simply no evidence that this is the case, indeed the current set of stagnated temperatures would strongly indicate that it's not.

    You've only got to go as far as Dr. Phil Jones from the UEA to get the statement that there's been no statistically significant diffence in warming during the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998, or that there's not been any more significant warming since 1995 to present.

    The 64 trillion dollar (and climbing) is what the climate sensitivity to CO2 is and almost every branch of evidence and enquiry would seem to indicate that this is low.

    Indeed, even the highly massaged recent temperature records would indicate that it's low - Case closed, I'm afraid.

    Thanks for taking Part,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 11:09am on 17 Nov 2010, Bryn wrote:

    LabMunkey #47. No.

    Scientists model systems. A lot. And it's useful. Even complex, non-linear, coupled systems with feedbacks and lots of uncertainty - like the geochemistry of the mantle or populations of micro-organisms or - who knows - maybe the atmosphere and oceans.

    If you'd care to abandon the fruits of such modelling you are welcome to occupy a hut somewhere very isolated but it's going to be lonely and boring. I think you'll find that even engineers use models of complex non-linear systems with chaotic behaviour.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 11:13am on 17 Nov 2010, quake wrote:

    Re 53. blunderbunny,

    Completely wrong.

    Observational evidence, paleodata evidence and model evidence suggest climate sensitivity is high, not low. Read Knutti 08 for such a review of climate sensitivity estimates.

    The instrumental temperature record itself is a poor contraint on climate sensitivity given that it takes time for an equillibrium to be reached (the oceans don't warm up instantly, anymore than a pot of water reaches boiling the moment you turn on the heat)

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 11:17am on 17 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @54

    bryn you are missing a very importaant distinction i said in "tightly defined circumstances".

    I.e. the systems were well or very well understood, were backed up by observational data and were verifiable via experimentation.

    Can you say with a straight face that this is the case for climate models? My issue is that climate models are not treated the same as models used in other branch's of science of engineering- perhaps i was too vague.

    as for your examples- all verifiable via direct observation and experimentation, no problem with those- except the oceans and atmosphere, where you start running into problems...

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 11:21am on 17 Nov 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Bryn_hill

    Are you making up you're own conversations now? I guess those on your side of the argument would now be calling this a straw man argument.

    The statement I made in #37 is true. Indeed, it's not even my statement it comes from the very page that Andreww999 was quoting. This is not the warmest year (yet - plus given recent Pacific cooling not likely to be either), whilst were on the subject, one might expect a succession of warmest years during an interglacial. That's kind of how it works when the ice is melting, don't you know. So having warm years themselves is no "be all and end all".

    Having a progression of Statistically significant ones might be, but we've not had that at all, now have we?

    So, I say again.... Where's the heat?

    Doesn't matter where you get your figures from, even GISS, you're not going to win that argument.

    As to your other point, I've nothing against the planet getting warmer, it's supposed to. Better that, than kilometre thick sheets of ice marauding across the landscape.

    Honestly, you’re going to have to do a lot better than that.

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 11:28am on 17 Nov 2010, apdavidson wrote:

    quake: 11.13 am: 'Observational evidence, paleodata evidence and model evidence suggest climate sensitivity is high, not low.'

    If most AGW has been from the optically-leveraged increase of transmission by aerosol-polluted clouds, you can easily explain palaeo data as well. No need for high climate sensitivity CO2-AGW.

    As for the models, they need a complete revamp of the optical physics of clouds. The direct aerosol bit might not be too far out though.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 11:30am on 17 Nov 2010, Bryn wrote:

    Blunderbunny #53
    So we agree that it was getting hotter quite quickly from 1910-40 and from 1975-1998. And the land temperature, without the modifying effect of the ocean, has been accelerating.

    As for the feedbacks, the accelearting loss of permafrost and (heaven help us) gas hydrates suggests that we are in deep trouble. Alas, the closed case to which you refer is not the one you mean - which is a pity because it would be great if you were right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 11:50am on 17 Nov 2010, Bryn wrote:

    Labmunkey #56

    Models are used to describe systems which are not well understood in order, in part, to understand them better. It's a rather well developed field. And rather a lot of the behaviour of the atmosphere is well understood, well described by the models and verified by field data. Do try to keep up.

    Blunderbunny #57

    Indeed, the statement you made in #37 is true. The NOAA (those well-known fantasists) say "For January–September 2010, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F) and tied with 1998 as the warmest January–September period on record.
    The global average land surface temperature for the period January–September was the second warmest on record, behind 2007.
    The global average ocean surface temperature for the period January–September was also the second warmest on record, behind 1998."
    So that's all right then. No evidence to support the preposterous idea that putting green-house gasses into the atmosphere will warm things up.

    And sure we're in an interglacial. And sure it's better not to be very cold. But complacently allowing rapid warming to mess up our environment, our societies and our economies isn't a rational alternative.

    Meanwhile some of us have work to do. Back in the rational world.

    Enjoy the echo chamber chaps.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 11:54am on 17 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @CanadianRockies #33
    (@blunderbunny)

    Hi Canadian Rockies.

    Bit disappointed by your link. Its author seems to be doing a bit of quote mining, he's quoted the stuff that fits his message, and paraphrased the stuff that doesn't.

    Now regardless of whether you want to be fair to Phil Jones (and being fair to your opponents always reflects well on you) or to Nature's David Adam, surely you want to be fair to your fellow sceptics by ensuring they have the full story.

    Here is the original Nature article, "The Hottest Year".
    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101115/full/468362a.html

    Notice it contains the following

    "One issue critics continue to badger Jones about is whether he deleted e-mails that had been requested through the freedom of information process. Jones insists he never did, as that would have qualified as an offence."
    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101115/full/468362a.html

    And it also contains the following

    "What about deleting e-mails that could be requested by future freedom of information requests? Britain's Information Commissioner's Office, which adjudicates such cases, says it is allowed. However, the Muir Russell report said that this kind of pre-emptive deletion is not consistent with the "spirit and intent" of the law, and there is evidence that CRU scientists took that questionable approach. When Jones is now asked if he deleted such messages, he says: "No, I deleted e-mails as a matter of course just to keep them under control.""
    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101115/full/468362a.html

    I'm having problems paraphrasing both of those statements as "Jones deleted emails based on dates, to keep them under control. Amidst all this, the specific reasons are lost. Apparently Jones deleted these emails, to “simplify his life”, by “not having them”, if they were requested by people “in the future”.
    http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/the-recovery-of-phil-jones-back-to-the-future/

    Meanwhile here's Nature's David Adam complaining about similar quote mining at Bishop Hill
    [Scroll down to Nov 16, 2010 at 10:39 AM]
    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/11/15/jones-in-nature.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 12:05pm on 17 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LabMunkey #46
    (@Richard Black)

    Beginning to wonder whether that theory that Delingpole is actually a warmist satirising sceptics is true. I mean David Attenborough, an "ecofascist", a "watermelon" [green on the outside, communist red on the inside], a viper [tag "nest of vipers"]. David Attenborough?

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100063937/why-the-bbc-cannot-be-trusted-on-climate-change-the-full-story/

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 12:07pm on 17 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 60
    again, you are missing the point, either willfully, or because i am not explaining well enough.

    these models are all verifiable by observational results and experimentation. The models you specifically mention are used to better understand systems, predictions are made and then tested to see if these predictions are correct. The models are then refined or discarded depending on these experimental results.

    The models are used as a tool for the better understanding of these unknown systems but they in NO WAY WHATSOEVER replace real-world experimentation.

    CLimate models are used as predictive entities, assigned staggering levels of confidence and are in no way tested or refined by real world observations. They do nothing to test the hypothesis (cAGW), only blindly attempt to reinforce it by making reams of untestable assumptions.

    If you cannot see the distinction there then you're in trouble- if on the other hand you can provide evidence that the climate models are reflective of real-world results, are tested and verifiable via further experimentation and do not make reams of unfounded assumptions, then i'll withdraw my comments.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 12:15pm on 17 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 62

    oh yes jane- he's plainly a snadwhich short of a picninc- it was more for the link to the document than anything else.

    as i've said repeatedly before- dellingople is an obviously biased source- but he does sometimes trip across good info.

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 12:15pm on 17 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LabMunkey #46
    (@Richard Black)

    To clarify my #62

    Obviously Delingpole does not confine his bile to "watermelon" [green on the outside, communist red on the inside] David Attenborough. In particular "ecofascist bias" and "nest of vipers" are applied to the BBC as a whole, not just Attenborough's 2006 "The Truth About Climate Change".

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100063937/why-the-bbc-cannot-be-trusted-on-climate-change-the-full-story/

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 12:43pm on 17 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LabMunkey #64

    "sandwich short of a picnic"

    Sympathies.

    It's a perennial problem when discussing climate change. Sources who put their opinions about their opponents very strongly, perhaps even offensively strongly, often have important points to make.

    I try and remember to warn people if I think one of my links contains upsetting material alongside the target material.

    PS, advice from a borderline dyslexic, typing into a word processor means you get spellchecking picking up most of your mistakes, and blips on the internet don't lose your typing. (Or were the typos intentionally humorous?)

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 12:55pm on 17 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #63 LabMunkey wrote:

    CLimate models are used as predictive entities, assigned staggering levels of confidence and are in no way tested or refined by real world observations. They do nothing to test the hypothesis (cAGW), only blindly attempt to reinforce it by making reams of untestable assumptions.


    Hi Lab Munkey, hope you're keeping well

    I had to check up on the statement above, because I thought that couldn't be correct, so I had a look through this document which is an assessment of climate models by the US govt climate change science program

    There's plenty of stuff in there about how real world observations are used to evaluate climate models - for example, look at Figure 2.5 on page 29, which shows how model runs are scored by comparing them with various climate fields.


    Of course there are also assumptions in the models ("parameterizations") which have a greater or lesser degree of validity depending on how much is known about the physics of the phenomenon. The models aren't perfect and never will be. However they are much better than they were ten years ago and in ten years time they will be better still. That can't happen unless their performance is continually assessed against real world observations.

    The models are used as a tool for the better understanding of these unknown systems but they in NO WAY WHATSOEVER replace real-world experimentation.

    (Not sure if you were talking about climate models there, but let's discuss that as if you were).

    Since we only have one actual physical system, the only "experiments" we can do with the climate system must be done using models, perturbed in various ways. Again, not perfect of course, but still a lot better than throwing up our arms and saying, "what's the point" !

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 1:13pm on 17 Nov 2010, izeezee wrote:

    Deniars needed in Cornwall to explain thats just a regular bit of precipitation being blown out of proportion by alarmists.

    Deniars needed in Moscow to say that 10C above seasonal norms are just because someone left a door open near a thermometer.

    I think in future I will say criminally negligent rather than deniar.

    Delingpole is such a lightweight he has to carry bricks in his pockets or he takes off when he has a pee!

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 1:22pm on 17 Nov 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @JaneBasingstoke

    Hi Jane, I was just referring to his recent nature article, in so much as he inferred that there might be a Climategate Mark II. My other refences to him were in regard to his BBC interview, where he was questioned on the statistical significance of the warming over certain recent periods.

    My Final Dr. Jones Reference, was I admit, a flippant one - Mea Maxima Culpa, but I was only illustrating the point that I could have made almost exactly the same statement as quake, with the simple alteration of a couple of words and names.

    Well, that's it for me for the day.

    Play nice, everyone

    One of the Lobby

    PS Come back Manysummits, even I'm missing you

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 1:26pm on 17 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LabMunkey #64

    Of course one thing Delingpole does get right is some of his links.

    So here's Montford's account at Montford's "Bishop Hill" blog
    (includes .pdf link to the Montford Newbery submission)
    (includes .doc link to the Montford Newbery submission)
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/11/16/submission-to-the-bbc-science-review.html

    And Newbery's account at Newbery's "Harmless Sky" blog
    (includes .pdf link to the Montford Newbery submission)
    (includes link to the Delingpole article)
    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=355

    (I do like Newbery's description of the Delingpole article as "typically enthusiastic")
    :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 1:32pm on 17 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    hi paul,
    all's grand thanks- hope likewise.

    Whoa, big document. I'll have to get back to you on that one!!

    Re- your specific example- the word 'normalised' worries me. But as i said above i'll have to read it all- so i'll have to get back to you, but i'll assume you're right for the interim.

    "Since we only have one actual physical system, the only "experiments" we can do with the climate system must be done using models, perturbed in various ways"

    kind of my point- i.e. you cannot compare them to other fields as there is no direct way to do a experimental verification, other than real-time observation. It's not a comment per say on the validity of the models (that's a seperate issue) but more on the comparison of models in other fields and the validation via association that seems to be used to back up the climate models veracity. if you follow.

    Hopefully that document will answer a lot of my questions and concerns. no doubt i'll let you know (probably at length!) once i've read it!!

    @ jane
    "(Or were the typos intentionally humorous?)" no no, i'm just a dolt. good advice on using a second program for initial drafts though, thanks.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 1:36pm on 17 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @blunderbunny #32

    Think the accepted misspell of "Guardian" is "Grauniad".

    :-)

    Actually I can't claim the credit for finding that particular article. One of you sceptics posted the link on an earlier Richard Black thread. Mr Woods.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/climate_body_seeks_new_wardrob.html#P101855184

    I don't know who should be going. But as Richard Black points out in the article above, it will be reporting on politics and diplomacy rather than science. I think both Richard Black and Roger Harrabin are reasonably familiar with climate politics, so it may come down to internal BBC logistics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 1:44pm on 17 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    Paul,

    Obviously i'm mining here for known issues (there's no way i can read this at leasure right-now given it's size).


    ------page 2 bottom of first paragraph

    "Difficulties in simulating
    Earth’s clouds and their response to climate
    change are the fundamental reasons preventing
    a reduction in this range in model-generated climate
    sensitivity"


    ---------page 3 right hand side column, second complete paragraph- bottom

    "Uncertainties related to clouds increase
    the difficulty in simulating the climatic
    effects of aerosols, since these aerosols are
    known to interact with clouds and potentially
    can change cloud radiative properties and cloud
    cover"

    ----------final paragraph of page 14 is also interesting, in fact almost every time i find a mention of clouds there is a qualifying statement.

    However i am encouraged by the fact that they openly state certain aspects are tested against real world observations- these seem to be limited to individual components of the model (i.e. physical theory, temperature change trends during day/night etc), but not the finished model itself- so far. This certainly suggests some real world validation occurse, though again it's interesting to note that it's always (so far) the last option after models, theory and calculations.

    OBVIOUSLY this is an exceptionally quick and slanted look at the document searching for a few key words and then looking at the context- so don't take this as a final word on it by any means!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 2:30pm on 17 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #73. LabMunkey wrote:

    This certainly suggests some real world validation occurse, though again it's interesting to note that it's always (so far) the last option after models, theory and calculations.


    Yes - I think there is a reason for this. Unlike a weather model it isn't the purpose of these models to make detailed predictions of short term events. They try to simulate longer term average states of many different variables. And they need to minimize the total error - so the "best" model for all variables may not be the "best" for any particular variable:

    As can be seen, models with the lowest total errors tend to score better than average in most individual metrics but not in all. For an individual application, the model with the lowest total errors may not be the best choice. (page 28)

    Also the main point is to get the physical theory right, so that the outcome (verified in the end by observation) nevertheless results from a consistent model of the physical system - that's why you'll find that most of the text in the document concentrates on the internal definition of relationships within the model

    Obviously you'll find that there are "known issues", and you may still decide there are so many that you don't accept the models. What I suppose you'd need to convince me and others about, however, is either
    (a) the models now are worse than they were ten years ago or
    (b) for some fundamental reason they could never achieve any useful goal in terms of climate forecasting

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 2:42pm on 17 Nov 2010, Maria Ashot wrote:

    In a democracy, voters elect officials, paid & protected by taxpayers, to formulate government policy.

    A majority of governments on the planet have concluded that climate change threatens human survival -- and that at least some of that climate change might be mitigated by making changes in how we generate and expend energy, and how we manage wastes -- especially the more toxic ones.

    Since the side that clings to doubts about the validity of the concern is clearly outnumbered, there is no sound basis for giving them anything remotely resembling the prominent platform they were allocated in 2009.

    Considering that the biggest foot-draggers of all happen to come from America, which is one of the very worst offenders in generating & dumping harmful wastes, and in living recklessly, the obvious connection between being a major cause of the problem & refusing to recognise that a problem exists need not be shied away from.

    In other words, greater and more vocal pressure must be applied, via global media, on Americans, on Saudis and on anyone else who blithely prefers to pollute unchecked.

    Those who relish & understand science will always find it in abundance online.

    What needs to happen is more coverage of institutional & individual efforts to improve results -- showcasing both Heroes & Villains, and not just one or the other.

    Show us practical steps we can take; scare us into awareness (because it helps) -- then offer some hope.

    Given that the US vs. China dynamic has changed significantly over the past 12 months, naturally enough, more emphasis should be given to what China is doing (or not doing) and less focus to what America is doing (and not doing) -- since the American situation is not likely to change much.

    The striking exception in the US will be California, which under Jerry Brown is bound to do much, much more for eco-sanity than it even did under Arnold.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 2:44pm on 17 Nov 2010, andrew9999 wrote:

    Blunderbunny
    You said "It's not record hot year as yet:

    "Here are the 1998 and 2010 averages for January 1st through October 31:

    1998 +0.57
    2010 +0.54

    Note that the difference between the two is not statistically significant…just symbolically."

    Please try to get your facts right.

    Regards,"

    Quite true my mistake for not reading Roy Spencers site properly, it was late but I know "the lobby" don't like NCDC who have this year as the hottest so far. Its fair likely it will be the hottest year because 1998 November and December anomalies were low, just look at AMSU near surface temperature data. The hottest twelve month period (not calendar year) occured recently.
    As for getting your facts right, all year you've being going on about the very cold winter the northern hemisphere had which wasn't true.
    Part did but more didn't.

    I think this is a great resource the Remote Sensing Systems monthly satellite temperature anomaly so you can check for yourself.
    http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html
    (click on anomaly)

    Enjoy

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 2:46pm on 17 Nov 2010, Spanglerboy wrote:

    @ apdavidson

    re your 2 posts. I have seen this argument on other blogs. It is interesting that the believers on this site are not engaging with you. Suspect a request will be sent to RC for reinforcements.

    Until your hypothesis is refuted I think it will have to be taken seriously

    For what it is worth all this talk about warmest year is plain juvenile. Temperature is the wrong metric.

    Wow it's getting crowded in this lobby!

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 2:51pm on 17 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    Paul.

    thanks for the response to my MANY half-baked ones!

    I agree, prediciting long term trends (and observing/verifying the results) has inherant difficulties and this alone should not be enough to discount the models.

    I also take the point on the internal validation- another valid point.

    My issues are that the models are unverifiable- despite what we know we are acting off predictions that the models churn out without knowing that they're correct. The precautionary principle in all it's ugly glory.

    The other issue is the incomplete modelling- i.e. the lack of understanding re-clouds (the parts i highlighted seemed to suggest they don't even know which way the cloud based forcings exert, let alone by how much). This would seem to me to be a fundamental sticking point and a major issue.

    re your two points
    (a) this is almost irrelevant (as if they are based on flawed premises it doesn't matter how 'good' they are), though i would argue that the models are nominally, getting better- insofar that they are increasingly able to model more complex interactions, larger numbers of interconnected criteria and that the general understanding of the system they are trying to model has increased (though can still be classed as abject).
    (b)again, i'm not sure this is relevant. For sure the models will reach a stage when they become exceptionally useful at certain predictions under certain criteria- but this will only increase (usefullness) as our knowledge of the system increases. you cannot have one without the other.

    However i temper all this by saying i still need to read that link you gave as some if not all of my questions may be addressed in there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 3:04pm on 17 Nov 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    @68. At 1:13pm on 17 Nov 2010, izeezee wrote:
    Deniars needed in Cornwall to explain thats just a regular bit of precipitation being blown out of proportion by alarmists.

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

    Oh no you don't.

    Every winter, when the snow piles up and the thermometer plunges below zero for months on end, we're told time and time again by the AGW crowd that 'weather isn't climate' and that's it's naughty and wrong of us to point out every freezing winter as evidence that we seem to be lacking in the rising temperature department.

    Well, that cuts both ways. YOU don't get to tout one day of heavy rain as proof of AGW. It's just weather, not climate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 3:16pm on 17 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @blunderbunny #69

    To clarify.

    My #61 was a response to CanadianRockies #33. CanadianRockies #33 was addressed to you.

    My #61 was not a response to your #8 or your #27, which, along with the jokes, also covers an issue that I am very concerned about, the way that many on both sides of the debate persistently fail to understand the motives of others, or the pressures on them. For instance Curry has flagged up the issue of tribalism, which is a problem, but has not flagged up some of the stronger influences driving that tribalism, some of which are essential to understanding behaviour on both sides of the debate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 3:58pm on 17 Nov 2010, andrew9999 wrote:

    Blunderbunny

    Before I forget for accuracies sake, the satellites (UAH and RSS) give the lower troposphere temperature anomaly, NCDC or GISS it is the surface temperature anomaly which of course is slightly different but related.
    So it being the hottest year on record so far is for the surface temperature, RSS and UAH have it ranked second warmist after 1998 for the lower troposphere anomaly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 4:36pm on 17 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Brunnen_G #79

    "Deniar" (note spelling with an "a") is not a warmist term, certainly not on these threads. (Use Google.) We may have another Mr Woods satirising warmists.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 5:06pm on 17 Nov 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    I think it might just be a case of poor spelling Jane.

    The niave willingness to accept every prophesy of doom as the word of God certainly seems geniune enough and is consistent with the majority of AGW followers beliefs.

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

    As to the matters being discussed, why aren't you all complaining to the BBC about Richard going on yet another holiday at your expense (I'm an ex-pat so no longer pay the license fee. As such I don't feel I have the right to complain, it's not MY money being used to send a journalist somewhere sunny to coverthe Annual Hot Air Show)? Do you all honestly think he'll spend two weeks in one conference room or another and take no time to enjoy himself?

    And while we're here, why does the Green Room have NO sceptical voices contributing to it? Is there NOT ONE journalist working for the beeb who is sceptical about AGW? Really, not one?

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 5:26pm on 17 Nov 2010, quake wrote:

    Re 77.

    I don't see any reason to take technical arguments seriously unless they've passed the scrutiny of peer review. I don't understand the physics of aerosols so I have no basis to assume an argument I don't understand is correct. And the red flag here for me is that this argument is being published on a BBC blog and not to a scientific journal..

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 5:33pm on 17 Nov 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    @84. At 5:26pm on 17 Nov 2010, quake wrote:
    Re 77.

    I don't see any reason to take technical arguments seriously unless they've passed the scrutiny of peer review.

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

    If it's good enough for the IPCC...

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 5:39pm on 17 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #83. Brunnen_G wrote:

    Do you all honestly think he'll spend two weeks in one conference room or another and take no time to enjoy himself?


    All work and no play makes Black .... etc etc

    Seriously though, I sincerely hope he does take a bit of time out to enjoy himself. The license fee is worth every penny for the avoidance of advertising alone ...


    And while we're here, why does the Green Room have NO sceptical voices contributing to it? Is there NOT ONE journalist working for the beeb who is sceptical about AGW? Really, not one?

    The reason for that (and lets assume we are only talking about science writers here) is that if you want to be taken seriously as a science journalist, you have to base your outlook on what has been published in the peer reviewed literature. If you took what's written on blogs with equal weight, you'd simply lose all respect among the scientific community.

    In any case, some might argue that the anti-AGW side gets far too much exposure in the cause of "balance" as it is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 6:17pm on 17 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Brunnen_G #83

    Fine. Could be just a misspell, albeit one more popular with sceptics than with warmists.

    But izeezee has already clocked up other dodgy statements that most genuine warmists would avoid like the plague. How about this one

    "I would not be surprised [line throw]
    if the most accurate prediction they made turns out to be that the Himalaya glaciers do melt by 2035."


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html#P103152634

    Perhaps izeezee is here because we have stopped taking Wolfie seriously.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 6:17pm on 17 Nov 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    So you're suggesting the BBC can't find ONE journalist conversant with the science being debated who doesn't agree with the consensus? (I'm choosing to ignore the nonsense you're implying that there is no credible science contradicting the AGW hypothesis.)

    Sorry, I don't believe that for a minute. If the beeb wanted to give a voice to the other side of the debate, they could.

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 6:32pm on 17 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Brunnen_G #83

    Plus of course the way that izeezee seems to have rendered CanadianRockies as "CD" (rather than "CR") in #23 and #30. What's that about? Is he imitating Trig (another John Sullivan character, who addressed Rodney Trotter as "Dave").

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/onlyfools/uncovered/trigger.shtml
    http://www.tootingpopularfront.com/

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 6:41pm on 17 Nov 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:

    Perhaps you're right Jane. I'll be more suspicious of her future posts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 6:46pm on 17 Nov 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @rossglory #44

    #6 mangochutney

    "Shouldn’t that be “allegedly” or have there been convictions?"

    nonsense, if someone grabs my watch and runs off it's been stolen whether the crook is caught and convicted or not.


    Ross,

    There is no evidence that i am aware of to suggest the email server was hacked and the emails stolen. If an insider took them and released the emails into the wild, then the insider a whistler blower and since the whistle blower had access to the emails, then it is hardly theft until proven to be so

    Hence, "allegedly" should be in Richards piece

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 6:50pm on 17 Nov 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    re: the climate models

    The IPCC failed to acknowledge doubts and uncertainties regarding the models in the SPM. The fact that many people don't get past the SPM, especially the policy makers, means the true position on models has been hidden from the public, unreported by people like Richard.

    Details of the IPCC's omission here:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/ozone.html#P102106292

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 6:51pm on 17 Nov 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Paul Butler #86 wrote:

    if you want to be taken seriously as a science journalist, you have to base your outlook on what has been published in the peer reviewed literature. If you took what's written on blogs with equal weight, you'd simply lose all respect among the scientific community.

    I don't think anyone should take what's written on "the blogs" or the "peer reviewed literature" with any given "weight" or seriousness, as they're just 100% different sort of media.

    But it is epistemically unsound to take what's written in one or the other more seriously, as if it has better credentials. Blogs are more likely to contain off-the-wall conspiracy theories; peer-reviewed literature is more likely to contain plodding, plagiarized orthodoxy: both of which are bad. Blogs are more likely to contain original or "disallowed" thinking; peer-reviewed literature is more likely to contain well-established, tried and trusted thinking: both of which are good.

    Peer review should really only be work as an initial "filter" for publication. As soon as it becomes a test of the credibility of published work, the rot of conformism sets in.

    A journalist who only reports peer reviewed literature hardly deserves the name "journalist", as all he is doing is summarizing what others have written already.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 6:55pm on 17 Nov 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    according to CBC News the Canadian Senate has voted down the climate change bill just in time for Cancun

    http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/11/17/senate-climate-bill.html

    Interesting that the bill was worked on for 5 years by the Sierra Club

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 7:04pm on 17 Nov 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Andrew9999

    Sorry mate you seem to have me confused with somebody else:

    "As for getting your facts right, all year you've being going on about the very cold winter the northern hemisphere had which wasn't true.
    Part did but more didn't."

    Been through all of my post back to Feb this year before I got bored.

    I've complained about Metar weather stations back in april/may sometime and suggested that might be a cause of the GISS winter temp anomoly.

    I've pointed out that the MWP was a global thing(mentioned hemispheres)

    I've pointed out with data that last winter was not mild in the UK.

    But the statement, as quoted, is simply untrue.

    How do you define "being going on" or indeed "all year" ?

    Just curious.......

    As to your other point, such as it was "fair likely it will be the hottest year" isn't really a definitive statement - At best, you could call it a prediction. So maybe, we should just agree to differ until the year closes out.

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 7:26pm on 17 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #94. MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:

    "according to CBC News the Canadian Senate has voted down the climate change bill just in time for Cancun

    http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/11/17/senate-climate-bill.html

    Interesting that the bill was worked on for 5 years by the Sierra Club"

    You beat me to it! Was just going to post a link to this story. Very proud to be a Canadian today. Almost makes up for our shameful contribution of Maurice Strong to the world. Of course, our resident Wartermelon televangelist and eco-crisis entrepreneur David Suzuki - who is given a taxpayer funded soapbox by our CBC (our propaganda equivalent of the BBC)- will be foaming at the mouth and perhaps demand that everyone who does not agree with him be arrested (again).

    And the Sierra Lawyer's Club Inc (Canadian division) will no doubt want to sue somebody (again, at taxpayer's expense)...

    Its also dead in the US. So... looks like the UK will get very lonely as they bravely "lead" the world down this Pinnochio hole. But at least the "little people" there can be proud to pay more for everything while their masters make megabucks to 'save the planet'... for the children, of course (THEIR children).

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 7:50pm on 17 Nov 2010, Brunnen wrote:

    Ah yes, the precious, precious children. I wonder if they're the same children they're planning to detonate if they don't conform to orthodox AGW teachings?

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 7:52pm on 17 Nov 2010, Brunnen wrote:

    Oh , and in case any of you are wondering, I was Brunnen_G, now simply Brunnen. I changed my account due to problems with my old email account.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 7:53pm on 17 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #61 JaneBasingstoke

    Hi Jane. Canadian Dockies here. As you noted in your #89, "izeezee" does call me "CD" (rather than "CR"). That is because izeezee, like all good AGW cultists, can see the future and knows that the planetary fever will soon cause the 'R' to recede into a 'D'... probably threatening the water supplies of billions of Canadians and/or killing millions of polar bears with malaria and/or flooding the Himalayas.

    Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

    But back to your #61... you wrote:

    "Bit disappointed by your link. Its author seems to be doing a bit of quote mining, he's quoted the stuff that fits his message, and paraphrased the stuff that doesn't."

    Many links out there on that topic. I just used one that was handy. True, this author does use the standard IPCC Gang methods. Or is it called the Black model?

    "Now regardless of whether you want to be fair to Phil Jones (and being fair to your opponents always reflects well on you) or to Nature's David Adam, surely you want to be fair to your fellow sceptics by ensuring they have the full story."

    I expect everyone to investigate everything/anything for themselves. We got into this mess because too many people just accepted what they were told, without thinking. Of course, the very deliberate use of hyperbolic fear tactics helped stampede the herd. Fear does tend to freeze the brain and create lemmings or, worse, mobs of lemmings screaming that all non-lemmings are 'deniers.'

    As for being "fair" to people who have done as much damage as Jones, be my guest. And be fair to Bernie Maddoff too. But it is obvious that the UK establishment whitewashes and Nature have been more than 'fair' to him... they are total apologists. As with Tony Bliar, that seems to have become a UK tradition. Orwell got the setting right for 1984.







    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 8:16pm on 17 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #98. Brunnen wrote:

    "Oh , and in case any of you are wondering, I was Brunnen_G, now simply Brunnen. I changed my account due to problems with my old email account."

    Oh. I thought it must have melted off.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 8:41pm on 17 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @CanadianRockies

    I don't think you quite get the full implications for being fair.

    For instance if I am fair about Madoff then I will say that he is a convicted criminal who caused a lot of misery, and was a significant contributor to the current mess in the economy. I would also be fair in expressing a strong opinion of him. Unfortunately the last time I expressed a similar strong opinion of the more disreputable bankers on a BBC thread the moderators disallowed it despite liberal use of asterisks.

    I don't think the establishment has been fair to Phil Jones.

    If they had been fair they would have investigated him more rigorously, to the satisfaction of sceptic moderates. This would have taken a lot of pressure off him, pressure to which he is still subjected. The investigations they carried out seem far more for their benefit, enough to cover their own a***s, but not enough to help Jones. I.e. the effective remit was to vindicate Jones's boss, it is left up to Jones to prove his own innocence to sceptics.

    This decision was probably made due to the sheer workload involved in investigating Jones properly. It may have been influenced by the establishment still not being fully aware how badly Jones's credibility has been damaged.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 8:42pm on 17 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Brunnen_G #90

    "her"

    LOL That'll wind him up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 8:59pm on 17 Nov 2010, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Mango #94 CR #96

    at least in the UK we have passed the relevant legislation

    cf Economic Suicide Act 2007

    One on the terraces. C'mon England. No seriously we are as good at football as we are at legislating against climate change

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 9:27pm on 17 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #101. JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    "I don't think you quite get the full implications for being fair.

    For instance if I am fair about Madoff then I will say that he is a convicted criminal who caused a lot of misery, and was a significant contributor to the current mess in the economy. I would also be fair in expressing a strong opinion of him...

    I don't think the establishment has been fair to Phil Jones.

    If they had been fair they would have investigated him more rigorously...

    This decision was probably made due to the sheer workload involved in investigating Jones properly. It may have been influenced by the establishment still not being fully aware how badly Jones's credibility has been damaged."

    Wow, Jane! That's quite the interpretation of things. While I agree with your point in theory, I find your rationalization of why the AGW whitewashers whitewashed to be almost ridiculous.

    The sheer workload??? You are kidding, right? With what is (was)at stake?

    And who set their absurd schedule which deliberately prevented any real inquiry?

    That does fit the Madoff story however. The SEC (which is as corrupt as Madoff) just didn't have time to investigate him, apparently.

    And the military-industrial complex that Bliar works for was just too busy to investigate the existence of Iraqi WMDs. I guess they had to wash their hair or watch soccer.

    As for this: "It may have been influenced by the establishment still not being fully aware how badly Jones's credibility has been damaged."

    Actually these out-of-touch Fabians just thought that the sheople would just believe what they said. Their basic premise is that the public is stupid and easily manipulated - which it is - but in this case it is too obvious that the emporer has no clothes. And getting back to Bliar, you can thank him and his cronies for this. If they hadn't duped the public with their WMD fairy tale the public might have still been gullible enough to fall for the Jones et al whitewashes.

    In any case, to paraphrase you, I will say that Jones is an unexamined conspirator who caused a lot of misery, and was a significant contributor to the current corruption of climate science and the crumbling credibility of all science that has come from this debacle. I would also be fair in expressing a strong opinion of him or anyone who has done such damage, and wish them what they truly deserve... and that is not pity or apologists defending them.



    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 10:00pm on 17 Nov 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    Brunnen @11: “One of the (increasingly crowded) Lobby.”

    Must be a very small lobby then! A quick scan down the comments reveals around a dozen people who share your views. The BBC website is the most popular one in the UK and yet there are never more than a handful of climate 'sceptics' in evidence. Given that your lot keep explaining how many sceptics there are who feel passionately that the mainstream science is wrong, it does beg the question as to where they are all hiding?!

    Bowman @93: “Blogs are more likely to contain original thinking”

    Some priceless 'outsider' analysis there. I would agree though. When you can write whatever you like and are not constrained by tedious things like having to provide evidence, it is undoubtedly true that a vast rainbow of diverse 'thinking' will follow...

    Canadian @96: “Very proud to be a Canadian today.”

    Well if recent Canadian opinion polls on climate change are anything to go by, then that would put you views clearly in the minority. The Canadian Senate is the equivalent of the UK's unelected House of Lords. Members are appointed by the arch neo-con Steven Harper who is in he pocket of the fossil fuel industry. His leadership has been stagnating for years and decisions such as this, which are out of step with both public opinion and the best scientific evidence, are likely to further his decline towards getting booted out at the next election...

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 10:24pm on 17 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @CanadianRockies #104

    I think you are overestimating the importance of Jones.

    Firstly he was always a comparatively minor player in climate science, with others also working on temperature sets, and his other work being less relevant to the AGW case.

    Secondly climate science's importance in climate politics has been drastically reduced by the position of the BASIC countries and other political institutions. Some of this was clear before Climategate and before Copenhagen.

    Finally as I have said in earlier posts, stuff like carbon trading has very little to do with either climate science or a workable fix for greenhouse gas emissions. There is an extremely good chance that carbon trading would have been invented anyway off the back of peak oil. And the financial people promoting carbon trading are rather better at selling their ideas than any scientist - look at the way they sold the idea that deregulation would work because they could trade away risk.

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 11:06pm on 17 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #105. Yorkurbantree wrote:

    "Canadian @96: “Very proud to be a Canadian today.”

    Well if recent Canadian opinion polls on climate change are anything to go by, then that would put you views clearly in the minority. The Canadian Senate is the equivalent of the UK's unelected House of Lords. Members are appointed by the arch neo-con Steven Harper who is in he pocket of the fossil fuel industry. His leadership has been stagnating for years and decisions such as this, which are out of step with both public opinion and the best scientific evidence, are likely to further his decline towards getting booted out at the next election... "

    Funny. Polls. Are you familiar with Chomsky's concept of manufactured consent? It is the result of propaganda, and we have had decades of increasingly hysterical fear-mongering propaganda about AGW that does take a while to wear off. It takes longer for some people, as you display.

    As for your take on Canadian politics, its laughable.

    And finally, when it comes to matters like this, it is actually a badge of honour to be part of the minority.

    Oh well. Keep up the good work. Cameron's relatives and others who are milking the British public to enrich themselves truly appreciate the efforts of useful idiots.

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 11:19pm on 17 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    106. JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    "I think you are overestimating the importance of Jones."

    Perhaps. He is only a useful idiot but he happens to be the public face of this scandal, in the UK at least. Of course his masters behind the scenes are more important but they are clever enough to hide.

    But to suggest that he "was always a comparatively minor player in climate science" is patently false. He and his co-conspirators (like his buddy Mann) were at the core of this deception, and they did it very deliberately.

    "Secondly climate science's importance in climate politics has been drastically reduced by the position of the BASIC countries and other political institutions. Some of this was clear before Climategate and before Copenhagen."

    The so-called "science" propping up this fraud was drastically reduced by the fact that it is junk science, promoted by junk scientists like Jones - who are really nothing more than zealots masquerading as scientists.

    In any case, all these details are little more than trivia now. The whole thing is collapsing... as it should.

    If I was a Brit I would be truly ashamed of Jones and his institution. More in the 'scientific' tradition of the Piltdown man.

    Happy Climategate Day coming on Friday... the day the light began to shine.



    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 11:20pm on 17 Nov 2010, Brunnen wrote:

    @100. At 8:16pm on 17 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:
    #98. Brunnen wrote:

    "Oh , and in case any of you are wondering, I was Brunnen_G, now simply Brunnen. I changed my account due to problems with my old email account."

    Oh. I thought it must have melted off.

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

    No doubt taking a highly endangered family of polar bears with it.

    @Yorkurbantree

    I've always found the balance on this blog to be about fifty-fifty. Maybe slightly in favour of the AGW side, but that just goes to show there really is one born every minute.

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 11:51pm on 17 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #106 Jane

    In case you have not already seen this, more on Jones. With some interesting comments.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/16/the-jones-rehabilitation/

    Poor Pinnochio...

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 00:30am on 18 Nov 2010, oldterry2 wrote:

    in 41. Bryn_hill wrote:

    " Likewise, there are simple positive feedbacks which amplify the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. "
    ummm no, their are lots of claims of positive feedbacks (which are incorporated into models) but no real hard evidence. It is also worth pointing out that the calculations leading to a 0.3 to 0.4C temperature rise from recent CO2's 1.6W/sq m are such that it is a net temperature rise that is calculated ie inclusive of all the feedback effects that are occuring in the 150W/sq m of normal (pre-industrial) warming.

    " And paragraph 36 says '... the overall climate sensitivity (for a hypothetical doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is likely to lie in the range 2oC to 4.5oC; this range is mainly due to the difficulties in simulating the overall effect of the response of clouds to climate change mentioned earlier.' So why didn't you include this bit Terry?"

    because para29 says 'the climate sensitivity would be around 1oC, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations.' and that is based on real info not speculation like para 36 - and I've also read para 47, see later. However going back to your para 36 - it says earlier 'Increases in water vapour alone, in response to warming, are estimated to approximately double the climate sensitivity from its value in the absence of amplifying processes'. Now that might be true (but seems high), but is neglecting the corresponding change in cloud cover. Now even the IPCC report included the info that the effect of cloud cover gave a negative effect which was 7 times the positive effect from water vapour itself.

    "Now my guess, Terry, is that you'll tell me how little regard you have for climate models and predictions."
    Quite true - but then I spent many years working on computer models of physical systems and know just how sensitive they are to the assumptions of physical process that are included in them. It is surprising how much things can change when better base measurements can be fed into them; the problem is that many of the base measurements needed for the current climate models are just estimates (science-speak for best guess).

    "It's what we usually get next - but this makes no sense. Modelling is used in science because it is useful and successful in representing the real world."
    Sorry, but that just shows you haven't ever been involved in trying to model science. Your statement could be true if we were talking about engineering but that isn't the case.

    " In fact we have two predicitons. You predict little change in the global energy balance due to human activity, the atmospheric scientists predict significantly more."
    no I was specifically talking about CO2; I didn't say anything about more general human activity, which could also have an effect.

    " Thus, since we have added a load of CO2 to the atmosphere you have to provide a plausible model to exlain why that will not lead to positive feedbacks through water vapour (among other effects)."
    Ah the 'magic' feedback. why 'magic'; because the feedback that is needed has to violate some of the basic rules of feedback loops: you need to find a source for the extra energy; you have to explain why the feedback loop isn't running away but somehow only manages to hit a limit at just the AGW expected temperature rise; you have to explain why the feedback loop only applies to the extra CO2 and not to the already existing normal levels of CO2 and other greenhouse causes.

    Finally I would like to draw your attention to para 47, ' As noted above, projections of climate change are sensitive to the details of the representation of clouds in models. Particles originating from both human activities and natural sources have the potential to strongly influence the properties of clouds, with consequences for estimates of climate forcing. Current scientific understanding of this effect is poor.' Which is science-speak for 'we have no idea how to model cloud effects properly but they are v. important'. You might also note the all embracing get out in para 56 'There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding'; which is science-speak for 'there is an awful lot we do not know about the climate'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 10:53am on 18 Nov 2010, Spanglerboy wrote:

    oldterry # 111

    good post

    I would be interested to know if there is an answer to your point about thhe magicness of the alleged positive feedback. I would guess that what happens in reality is that the cliamte reaches a new level of equilibrium (even tho it is apparently never really in equilibrium) but why does the positive feedback not keep looping ever onwards and upwards. Indeed given that the climate is subject to variations in forcings all the time why is it that (other than the odd ice age and even they dont last forever) the earth seems to enjoy a relatively stable climate? If anyone knows will they please share with us

    I note that there has been only one response to Richards latest post. Seems not many are interested in tuna and French people. I know I amn't

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 10:58am on 18 Nov 2010, Wolfiewoods wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke @#89 said “Plus of course the way that izeezee seems to have rendered CanadianRockies as "CD" (rather than "CR") in #23 and #30. What's that about? Is he imitating Trig (another John Sullivan character, who addressed Rodney Trotter as "Dave").”

    Jane, sometimes you do get warm but sometimes you read too much into things, I do have another presence here but it is not “izeezee”.

    I still post here, I do like to “get some in”.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 11:31am on 18 Nov 2010, JunkkMale wrote:

    105. At 10:00pm on 17 Nov 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:
    Brunnen @11: “One of the (increasingly crowded) Lobby.”

    Must be a very small lobby then! A quick scan down the comments reveals around a dozen people who share your views. The BBC website is the most popular one in the UK and yet there are never more than a handful of climate 'sceptics' in evidence. Given that your lot keep explaining how many sceptics there are who feel passionately that the mainstream science is wrong, it does beg the question as to where they are all hiding?!


    The world of statistics, darn statistics and polls is an interesting one. Seems, at best, a dark art over a science, and I don't pretend to often understand the methodologies. It seems often to depend very much on what is the desired result of those invoking them.

    But audience samples, what they represent and indeed how representative they are can always intrigue.

    For instance, might it be accurate to wonder if whatever happens within a medium might in some way be influenced by what that medium produces, as both fact or opinion?

    Then one gets to the numbers.

    It's nice to see this thread get to over a hundred as a sample upon which to base such projections before watertight oversight or closing time shutters come down.

    However, as of of the few avenues of conversation from a predominantly broadcast only body of work in the arena of environmental issues (Ethical Man now no longer in that role, it seems, and others hard to find even when typing 'Environment' or 'Green' into the search panel), the representative nature of the participating, interested audience (those merely observing one presumes to be known, if only to the site owners) seems quite low in totality, working through those who have internet access (and time) up through to the potential national numbers and, of course, beyond to worldwide. Millions at least.

    A few score seems, low, considering. But perhaps the heft of the composition is deemed to be in the passion or regularity of views held and made? I fear I am unable to really assess the quality of commentary, as a person telling me they know better, and/or are qualified to do so, on a blog means little.

    And when comparing relative numbers 'pro' or 'con' a view, there are surely many other factors. A 'pro' or 'con' recommendation or 'report' on a Telegraph Delingpole or a Guardian Monbiot CiF are pretty meaningless, being at best reflective of the overall voluntary (versus contrarian) readership, or at worst down to the 'commitment' of small minorities with access to multiple ISP sources if so moved.

    Plus, of course, the results can be skewed when passions do spin up a notch. I dip in here rarely and only comment (more on matters of tribal excess, as the topics seem well addressed already by many who feel they are well able to speak for others with various 'ist/'inger/'zi''you lot presumptions based on remarkable insight as to what lies behind a blog nickname, too much more than qualities of actual argument) when especially troubled by retrograde concepts to free speech being articulated. It's much better now, but I do recall a descent not so long ago into 'blocs' who would call for censure simply for holding alternative views, and even, on occasion, imprisonment. Such intolerance can also influence a blog composition... one way, or another. And hence skew those numbers even before they get 'interpreted'.

    Just ask Ed. Miliband, who, when in power, was quite forceful in terminology designed to promote certain views, often backed by considerable funding in support, whilst seeking to crush any that might have not been so complementary, or even complimentary.

    Yet despite all this, he often found himself surprised to be not speaking for quite the majority he claimed (as with the Science Museum initiative that proved inconvenient to his narrative and those he had onside to push it).

    Which is pretty key as, ultimately, it is how the entirety of the public actually votes, with crosses on ballots, feet and/or actions, that truly matters for the future of this planet and our heirs' lives upon it.

    And if we are at the point we are now with public awareness and opinion, I am not sure the message of many often self-selecting messengers is getting through in the form they are still trying to shove it, presuming its basis to be accurate and sincere.

    So telling folk they are ill-informed, and/or wrong, and/or need to change, and/or deserve no voice, strikes me to be a proven flawed strategy. Possibly in need of change?

    If seeking to persuade, and inspire, I'd see more merit in being open to debate and persuade with the power of argument, as opposed to reaching for the tribal rallying cries or mods' ripcord the instant things look like slipping away. Plus avoiding swords with more than one edge.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 11:35am on 18 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @111 oldterry

    "'There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding'; which is science-speak for 'there is an awful lot we do not know about the climate'. "

    and

    " you have to explain why the feedback loop only applies to the extra CO2 and not to the already existing normal levels of CO2 and other greenhouse causes. "

    These are some of the large sticking points for me too. excellent post.

    @wolfie#113
    "I do have another presence here but it is not “izeezee”."

    why would you post under more than one name??? what do you hope to achieve by this??

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 12:18pm on 18 Nov 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @oldterry2 #111

    Yep, I echo the sentiments of my fellow Lobby "Lurkers" (Vestibulians) -Excellent post. I too want to see some evidence for these 'simple' positive feedbacks and I also want to see some acknowledgement of uncertainties - They seem happy enough to bury them in the deep dark bowels of documents that they aren't expecting anyone to read, but oddly reticent to acknowledge their existence in public discussions.

    Regards,

    One of the (we’re officially going to build an extension) Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 1:05pm on 18 Nov 2010, JunkkMale wrote:

    112. At 10:53am on 18 Nov 2010, Spanglerboy wrote:

    I note that there has been only one response to Richards latest post. Seems not many are interested in tuna and French people. I know I amn't


    The case for an ongoing open thread therefore gets suggested.

    Especially in light of the following I have just had in by way of response to a complaint that I was denied the opportunity to comment on a thread that closed almost as soon as it opened, and certainly before I was in a position at home to engage:

    'Thanks for getting in touch. The post you link to had a high incidence of off-topic comment underneath and so was closed. Posts where comments remain within the house rules stay open to comments for longer.'

    Far from finding this an adequate explanation, I was appalled at the inadequacy of the excuse, especially as it impacts on the moderating system as whole, and the duty to posters who can and do comment per (albeit moving goalpost and often selectively-interpreted) 'rules'.

    This seems to be carte blanche to shut down at any time for any reason, or by getting some to provide one if necessary. And also serves the interests of those who pick the topic over the wealth of others that could and should be open for discussion if the interest is there.


    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 2:08pm on 18 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #116. blunderbunny wrote:

    I too want to see some evidence for these 'simple' positive feedbacks


    You could try this paper:

    Soden et al, 2006, Science
    The Radiative Signature of Upper Tropospheric Moistening


    Abstract: Climate models predict that the concentration of water vapor in the upper troposphere could double by the end of the century as a result of increases in greenhouse gases. Such moistening plays a key role in amplifying the rate at which the climate warms in response to anthropogenic activities, but has been difficult to detect because of deficiencies in conventional observing systems. We use satellite measurements to highlight a distinct radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening over the period 1982 to 2004. The observed moistening is accurately captured by climate model simulations and lends further credence to model projections of future global warming.

    or this:

    Santer et al 2007 Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content

    Abstract: Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over
    oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. Results
    from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of
    this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a
    formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results
    from 22 different climate models, the simulated ‘‘fingerprint’’
    pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is
    identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data.
    Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest
    that this fingerprint ‘‘match’’ is primarily due to humancaused
    increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or
    recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findings
    provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal
    in the moisture content of earth’s atmosphere.





    #116. blunderbunny also wrote:
    ..... and I also want to see some acknowledgement of uncertainties - They seem happy enough to bury them in the deep dark bowels of documents that they aren't expecting anyone to read, but oddly reticent to acknowledge their existence in public discussions.


    I think you mean "reluctant" here, by the way

    Its difficult to know what you expect them to do here. As I'm sure you are aware the public can very easily turn off if a discussion gets too "sciencey". But let's take as an example the Royal Society document that got discussed upthread. If you search for the string "uncertaint", you get 22 results in 19 pages. And the previous RS effort, also with 19 pages, had 17 results for the same string.

    Is that not enough for you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 2:14pm on 18 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #111. oldterry2 wrote:

    Ah the 'magic' feedback. why 'magic'; because the feedback that is needed has to violate some of the basic rules of feedback loops: you need to find a source for the extra energy;


    The extra energy is the extra downward radiation due to the extra greenhouse gases

    you have to explain why the feedback loop only applies to the extra CO2 and not to the already existing normal levels of CO2 and other greenhouse causes.

    Because the background level is an equilibrium level during interglacials. The problem lies in increasing one side of the loop at a rate which is certainly unprecedented in the period during which the planet has been subject to glacial cycles.

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 2:55pm on 18 Nov 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #91 mangochutney

    that is a different point in that it has nothing to do with convictions. however the uea actually said about the loss of emails:

    "We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this inquiry."

    so they certainly thought they were stolen and it was not a leak.

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 3:00pm on 18 Nov 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    Thanks for those papers, Paul.

    But, if we’re talking water vapour and the troposphere, I can quickly counter with this one:

    Platridge et al 2009, "Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data"

    Only based on direct measurement don't'cha'know (the cheek of it – actually measuring stuff) ;-)

    With regard to reticent/reluctant, I was definitely going for "disposed to be silent or not to speak freely", rather than reluctant “unwilling; disinclined”, as I was talking about having discussions and I was going for the whole implied guilt thing.

    But, both words convey a realtively similar meanings, so hey, take your pick - not something you should say in a room full of shovels ;-)

    And,

    "Is that not enough for you?"

    Ehh – Nope - Models and inferred measurements vs Actual ones, sorry mate, but you'll need to try a little harder than that.

    Any news on a Tropospheric Hotspot by the way?

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 3:28pm on 18 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #121. blunderbunny wrote:

    Thanks for those papers, Paul.

    But, if we’re talking water vapour and the troposphere, I can quickly counter with this one:

    Platridge et al 2009, "Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data"

    Only based on direct measurement don't'cha'know (the cheek of it – actually measuring stuff) ;-)


    Fair enough, although I think the papers I referenced also do measurements. All you asked for in your post was evidence from observation for positive feedbacks, which I provided.

    Now in the paper you cite, I got as far as the second sentence in the abstract, which says this:
    It is accepted that radiosonde-derived humidity data must be treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa
    pressure level.


    Now I might be allowed to accept the balance of multiple lines of evidence, even if they all suffer from uncertainties. After all, I accept the scientific consensus on climate change as summarized in IPCC. But you've already said that those uncertainties are a major reason why you don't accept that consensus.

    So - be honest - you can't with any consistency accept the claims of a paper which stresses in the 2nd sentence of its abstract that its conclusions should be treated with great caution.

    Still at least he's honest about it!

    I'll try to find time to respond to your other points shortly

    Cheers

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 4:26pm on 18 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @CanadianRockies #108

    "But to suggest that he "was always a comparatively minor player in climate science" is patently false. He and his co-conspirators (like his buddy Mann) were at the core of this deception, and they did it very deliberately."

    "like his buddy Mann", "at the core of this deception"

    OK. We need to be clear. Hockey Sticks are not part of the core case on AGW. Hockey Sticks are a comparatively young science involving an ongoing search for more and better temperature proxies.

    Hockey sticks were too "tidy" in TAR, and taken out of context this would have mislead, but since then they have been cut down to size by the mainstream scientists. And you may be confusing Jones and Mann with activists like Gore.

    Here's Mann on Hockey Sticks. Note the original date of this post. Note the fact that it is still current.

    "MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth.

    This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth’s surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this conclusion is the evidence from so-called “Detection and Attribution Studies”. Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)."


    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 4:27pm on 18 Nov 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #120

    Ross, having experience, if it took me a year or more to come up with an answer to who stole/hacked some pieces of paper from from a server, then my Inspector would have had me issuing parking tickets down the High Street. The IP trace at the time lead straight to an FTP server in Norfolk. The fact the police have said nothing speaks volumes.

    However, it has been very useful for UEA who have been able to hide behind the fact of police involvement to prevent any other emails been released under FOI or viewed by the whitewash Muir Rusell enquiry.

    Paul

    Nice try on the papers on models/feedbacks from the team, you might find the written testimony by Dr.Richard Lindzen of yesterday to the US Congress rather interesting.

    Unfortunately, it is PDF format but can be found at ClimateDepot item 7, written so that politicians can understand it is something to read.

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 4:28pm on 18 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #121 blunderbunny wrote:

    With regard to reticent/reluctant, I was definitely going for "disposed to be silent or not to speak freely", rather than reluctant “unwilling; disinclined”, as I was talking about having discussions and I was going for the whole implied guilt thing.


    Perhaps its my age, but we used to say "reticent about" whatever subject or "reluctant to" do something. So whenever I see "reticent to" do something (which people do quite a lot these days) it looks wrong. But I do see your point about the difference between them.

    Does anybody else have any thoughts on that, or is it just me being pedantic?

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 4:35pm on 18 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @CanadianRockies #110

    Yes, saw that.


    "email deletion"

    'Fraid that looks like a quote mine to me. Jones explicitly says that he did not delete emails that were the subject of FOI requests, and explicitly says that he did not base his email management on the possibility of frustrating future FOI requests.


    "Chinese weather stations"

    It really wouldn't hurt to issue some sort of formal clarification that could be checked in its own right.


    "fear the hackers may be sitting on more stolen e-mails"

    Given the number of misinterpretations of the emails (the likes of Sarah Palin not realising "hide the decline" was about tree ring temperature proxies) and the ensuing nastiness (the police have investigated death threats against Jones), yes I can understand Jones's nervousness.


    "serious offences"

    Eschenbach seems happy that Jones hasn't committed full scale scientific fraud (which is probably what the Nature journalist meant by "serious offences"), but is upset over the FOI problems. FOI offences can be described as serious, although not in the same league as actual fraud.

    There were mitigating circumstances with the FOI stuff, including Jones's tiny department needing help with FOI paperwork well before the 58 submissions in July 2009.

    Mitigating for Jones, that is. His superiors let him down in not realising the way Jones's work was now politically hot and supplying help with the resulting extra FOI paperwork.


    "Lying by omission" [about the "timeline" only visible in the .pdf]

    "Lying by omission" is way strong. Stuff can get left out of an article if a journalist doesn't know about it, and it is only part of the background to the article. The "timeline" (A Career By Degrees) is only visible in the .pdf, and it looks like it has been kept deliberately short for clarity.


    "Harry_Read_Me" [again]

    Oh, and Harry_Read_Me wasn't about Jones's temperature set work. It was a separate database covering a wide range of different weather stats. You can see references to some non-temperature stats (e.g. "precipitation") in Harry_Read_Me. You can also see references to the multiple weather stats database CRU TS versions 2.1 and 3.0 in Harry_Read_Me

    Harry_Read_Me itself
    http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

    HadCRUT, CRUTEM, and others, temperature data sets with just temperature
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

    CRU TS 2.1 and 3.0, includes cloud cover, frost days, precipitation, some temperature details, vapour pressure and wet days.
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg/

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 4:36pm on 18 Nov 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    As for the actual topic of the blog.

    Simply don't bother the world cannot afford it, the whole theory is now discredited to such an extent that no politician will sign up to it. It is not going to pass muster in Canada and after the US elections the US will not put pen to paper even if all ice disappeared.

    That only leaves the Undemocratic Republic of the EU, which you guys are mostly stuck with and I can jump ship on. But hey what's the problem with no electricity or £800 bills when the temperature outside is minus 10, you could even burn all those green living guides.

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 4:44pm on 18 Nov 2010, Tim wrote:

    There's a lot of hostility towards the very notion of anthropogenic climate change and I can see lots of ugly rhetoric flung about; Ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments and bizarre reversals of blame.
    The one that gets me is that there is some vast conspiracy of evil climate change scientists trying to destroy your way of life. Why would they hatch this dastardly plot? Ah yes, to secure more grant money! Of course, such vast sums would corrupt any scientist.
    This is, of course, utter nonsense. If you want to see the real vested interests then follow the real money. Many organisations have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and it would make (financial) sense for these people to resist renewable energy, electric cars, greater efficiency or anything else that would result in fewer people buying their products. Of course these people will routinely rubbish any efforts to improve things. This is deplorable and short sighted but understandable, if you're a corporate shill.

    If the conclusions of so many climate scientists are correct then the cost of doing nothing and continuing as we are will be enormous.
    On the other hand, there are many benefits to cleaning up our act, even if AGW isn't as serious as many of us think it is.

    So, why all the hostility and disingenuous rhetoric? Are you guys being paid to do this?


    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 4:50pm on 18 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @mangochutneyukok #6 #91
    @Barry Woods #20
    @LabMunkey #40 #47
    @quake #42
    @rossglory #44 #120
    @jasonsceptic #51

    Stole/Hacked versus Leaked

    From David Adam's Nature article "The hottest year"

    "More certain is the conclusion that the hack of the server was a sophisticated attack. Although the police and the university say only that the investigation is continuing, Nature understands that evidence has emerged effectively ruling out a leak from inside the CRU, as some have claimed. And other climate-research organizations are believed to have told police that their systems survived hack attempts at the same time."

    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101115/full/468362a.html


    Oh, and please not the Paul Hudson myth again. Hudson was on the original legitimate distribution of some of the hacked/leaked emails, and was trying to vouch for them being genuine. His first attempt to explain this was ambiguous. The second clearer.

    ambiguous wording
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml

    clearer wording
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 5:05pm on 18 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #124. Kamboshigh wrote:

    Paul

    Nice try on the papers on models/feedbacks from the team, you might find the written testimony by Dr.Richard Lindzen of yesterday to the US Congress rather interesting.


    But I know Lindzen takes a different view from the mainstream IPCC view. And I'll try at some point to find the time to go through the arguments in detail.

    I'm not knocking Lindzen in the way some people do, I'm sure he's a very intelligent climate scientist who is sincere in his views. But he's in a minority of 3 or 4 who think sensitivity is lower than IPCC. And there are probably 3 or 4 who think it is higher (Rahmstorf for example).

    What I won't do is accept a minority view just because I don't like the implications of the majority view.

    Rest assured that if climate sensitivity is shown through multiple strands of evidence to be lower than currently accepted, I'll accept the changed consensus. In fact I hope your view is correct, since it will give us more time to deal with the consequences of increasing greenhouse gas emissions

    Cheers, Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 5:11pm on 18 Nov 2010, Toraborata wrote:

    I'm no scientist but here's what common sense tells me about positive feedback and runaway climate change - it cant be true. Either the scientists have just got things wrong or there are other factors not being taken into account, otherwise this planet would now be a ball of ice or a desert world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 5:34pm on 18 Nov 2010, david wrote:

    Worth repeating the following from the infoplease website in the 'yes it was'/'no it wasn't' arguments over record temperatures - particularly for andrew9999 (posting #31) and his assertion that the highest ever temperature recorded in Asia was in Pakistan - 'a staggering 53.5C'...

    HIGHEST TEMPERATURES WORLDWIDE

    World Libya 1922 58C
    N America Death Valley 1913 57C
    Asia Israel 1942 54C
    Australia Queensland 1889 53C
    Europe Spain 1881 50C
    S America Argentina 1905 49C
    Canada Saskatchewan 1937 45C
    Oceania Philippines 1912 42C
    Antarctica Vanda Station 1974 15C

    These are, of course, the highest RECORDED temperatures - I'm sure that higher temperatures have occurred throughout history, before reliable records began..

    Perhaps the 'warmists' on this blog would care to explain why not one - NOT ONE - of the above, has occurred in the last thirty years, when we have been allegedly hurtling towards Armageddon due to all the 'man made' CO2 emissions...

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 5:40pm on 18 Nov 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    As long as they are genuine, the origin of emails is wholly irrelevant to their content. This is true of any hacked or stolen or leaked emails/documents, whichever illicit practices they reveal, from torture to resisting requests for information.

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 5:45pm on 18 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #131. Toraborata wrote:

    I'm no scientist but here's what common sense tells me about positive feedback and runaway climate change - it cant be true. Either the scientists have just got things wrong or there are other factors not being taken into account, otherwise this planet would now be a ball of ice or a desert world.


    No it doesn't work quite like that. For example, during the glacial cycles there are two equilibrium states - the interglacials which is what we're in now, and the glacial state when large areas of the Northern Hemisphere are covered with thick ice caps. Feedback processes are what moves us between those states. The feedbacks stop because at certain levels of (say) temperature the negative (or stabilizing) feedbacks balance the positive (or amplifying) feedbacks

    And here's an interesting piece about how feedbacks work in the human body

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 5:52pm on 18 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #132. david wrote:

    Perhaps the 'warmists' on this blog would care to explain why not one - NOT ONE - of the above, has occurred in the last thirty years, when we have been allegedly hurtling towards Armageddon due to all the 'man made' CO2 emissions...



    David, it would help if you could give us a source for this infomation

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 6:36pm on 18 Nov 2010, david wrote:

    To Paul Butler at #135 - I did mention the source at the beginning of my message - its called infoplease.com

    I have also seen the same list on the Met Office website.

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 8:04pm on 18 Nov 2010, andrew9999 wrote:

    David.

    The temperatures that are on Weather Underground come from the WMO you can also see them on NOAA/NCDC State of the Climate report for the respective month.
    The point is they are the records for the particular countries. Israel is probably classed as the Middle East not Asia so they don't contradict so what exactly is the problem?
    Not everywhere in the world has had record high temperatures some have been cooler. But these are record high temperatures in a globally very (record) hot year.

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 8:09pm on 18 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    123. JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    "OK. We need to be clear. Hockey Sticks are not part of the core case on AGW..."

    Well Jane, you have hit a new level of absurdity with this comment. The fake Mann-made hockey stick was the central icon and the alleged graphic 'proof' of The Warming that was used to sell this Big Lie to the public. Your comment just parrots the spinning apologists.

    "And you may be confusing Jones and Mann with activists like Gore."

    What's the difference? All three are ideological zealots who have deliberately deceived the public for their own gain. The only difference is that Jones and Mann were masquerading as "scientists" while Gore was playing false Watermelon messiah.

    (And let's not forget Hansen, another blatantly obvious zealot pretending to be a scientist.)

    All three are now jokes who will go down in history in the same category as Madoff and Bliar. For Gore, a sleazy used planet salesman/politician, this simply confirms what the public always knew about such types. But the zealots masquerading as scientists have done much more damage to the credibility of real science. Until these charlatans are properly dealt with, this damage will continue.



    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 8:12pm on 18 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    133. bowmanthebard wrote:

    "As long as they are genuine, the origin of emails is wholly irrelevant to their content. This is true of any hacked or stolen or leaked emails/documents, whichever illicit practices they reveal, from torture to resisting requests for information."

    Agree. Note that the same people moaning about the revelation of these emails don't seem to be screaming about Wikileaks - presumably because they like what the latter leaked.

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 8:28pm on 18 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #132. david wrote:

    "Perhaps the 'warmists' on this blog would care to explain why not one - NOT ONE - of the above, has occurred in the last thirty years, when we have been allegedly hurtling towards Armageddon due to all the 'man made' CO2 emissions..."

    If you want to find doomsday you need to use the data "adjusted" by the climate crisis industry, not any actual measurements.

    And please ignore all that history actually recorded about the climate or you might accidentally think that the Medieval Warm Period (etc.) happened - which puts an inconvenient warp in the Holy Hockey Stick.


    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 9:05pm on 18 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #136. david wrote:

    To Paul Butler at #135 - I did mention the source at the beginning of my message - its called infoplease.com

    I have also seen the same list on the Met Office website.


    Sorry, yes you did, I just didn't read it properly :-(

    However, I still have the same problem, since infoplease doesn't give its sources.

    So when I separately looked for the record for Australia, I found this page on the WMO site:

    http://wmo.asu.edu/australia-highest-temperature

    where it gives the record as 50.7 in 1960 and adds this

    Although Cloncurry, Queensland, Australia recorded a temperature of 53.3°C (128°F) on 16/1/1889, it was made using a nonstandard temperature screen. Consequently, the Oodnadatta recording is the high temperature extreme.

    So when we are talking about these extremes, we need to be certain that we are comparing like with like. The further back we go, the more difficult it becomes to adjust the data properly so they are comparable with modern data.

    That doesn't mean your records aren't correct. These records, whether they are for continents or for countries, are symptomatic; the important figures are the global averages, which certainly are rising and have been for 100 years or more.

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 9:13pm on 18 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #140. CanadianRockies wrote:

    If you want to find doomsday you need to use the data "adjusted" by the climate crisis industry, not any actual measurements.


    Yes - if there is a "doomsday" that is how we're going to find it. If we don't homogenize the data, we won't find anything useful.

    And please ignore all that history actually recorded about the climate or you might accidentally think that the Medieval Warm Period (etc.) happened - which puts an inconvenient warp in the Holy Hockey Stick.

    No - there certainly was a warmer period in Europe and around the North Atlantic. The questions we want to answer are (a) whether it was in fact warmer then than it is now and (b) whether it happened at the same time around the world

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 9:15pm on 18 Nov 2010, andrew9999 wrote:

    David,
    A bit more of a reply to your question, none of the world record temperatures that you quote were in the same year so they don't represent a global event.
    Individual high temperatures will always crop up the important question is do they represent a global phenomena. I think the reason why people are taking note of this year is because so many countries are breaking records.

    Individually they don't mean anything.
    Even if say next year the highest temperature is recorded on its own it doesn't mean anything.

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 9:43pm on 18 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @CanadianRockies #138

    Icon, yes. Alleged proof, only with the more enthusiastic non-scientist activists. Not with the mainstream scientists.

    You did spot the date on that Mann link, didn't you. 2004. Mann wasn't pushing Hockey Sticks as the definitive proof, he was doing the opposite.

    Do you want me to hold your side to account for all your enthusiastic activists?

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 10:02pm on 18 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    142. Paul Butler wrote:

    "Yes - if there is a "doomsday" that is how we're going to find it. If we don't homogenize the data, we won't find anything useful."

    Hilarious! Sorry Paul, but we already know how they have 'homogenized' the raw data to make it conveniently useful. Madoff did the same thing. So your point may have been valid before anyone knew what was really happening, but we do know - unless you are in denial.

    "No - there certainly was a warmer period in Europe and around the North Atlantic. The questions we want to answer are (a) whether it was in fact warmer then than it is now and (b) whether it happened at the same time around the world."

    Really. I'm sure you will be thrilled to hear that Mann's gang has been trying to invent some convenient new interpretations of that - as though anybody believes anything they manufacture now.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/22/mike-manns-secret-meeting-on-the-medieval-warm-period/

    But you do, indirectly, raise an important point. What "global" temperature? All we now have for that or other comparisons is just the conveniently adjusted junk data you choose to accept.

    You don't believe all government statistics, do you?




    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 10:30pm on 18 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #145. CanadianRockies wrote:

    Hilarious! Sorry Paul, but we already know how they have 'homogenized' the raw data to make it conveniently useful. Madoff did the same thing. So your point may have been valid before anyone knew what was really happening, but we do know - unless you are in denial.


    Well, we're obviously not going to get anywhere arguing about this. You look like a conspiracy theorist to me, and I must seem like somebody who - what? - somehow wants to manipulate data so it gives a result that I don't actually want to be the case (I don't know how that works ...)


    I'm sure you will be thrilled to hear that Mann's gang has been trying to invent some convenient new interpretations of that - as though anybody believes anything they manufacture now.

    Oh that meeting. Well I knew about it before it even happened, so quite who is supposed to be keeping it secret (as Watts claims) is beyond me. Its hardly surprising that leading climate scientists are going to get together from time to time to discuss, err, climate science. Quite what is supposed to be "convenient" about any new interpretation is also beyond me. If more data comes through, interpretations will change. It looks to me as if "the team" may be a lot more flexible on this point than their critics - but they are responding to the science, not to a preconceived idea of what they would like to be the case.

    What "global" temperature? All we now have for that or other comparisons is just the conveniently adjusted junk data you choose to accept.

    Well, do you think the satellite data are also junk? Because it is basically consistent with the station measurements as interpreted at CRU and NASA over the past 40 years.

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 10:55pm on 18 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #144. JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    "Icon, yes. Alleged proof, only with the more enthusiastic non-scientist activists. Not with the mainstream scientists."

    OK Jane. Let's pretend that the massive propaganda campaign launched to scare the lemmings into believing in AGW was based on anything any "mainstream" scientist said - whatever you mean by "mainstream."

    The Hockey Stick was to the AGW Big Lie what the "mushroom cloud" was to the Iraqi WMD Big Lie. It was the simple symbol they used to sell their scam to the public.

    Again, the eco-crisis industrial complex operates exactly like the military-industrial complex... the use fear to enrich themselves with both money and power. Only the utterly naive do not get this.

    This whole thing was not based on any real science at all, just as the Iraqi WMD lie was not based on any real evidence either.

    And no surprise that Bliar has now joined the AGW gang.

    "Do you want me to hold your side to account for all your enthusiastic activists?"

    Sure. Go ahead. Find something that came from the 'skeptical' side that compares with the outright lies and deceptions promoted by the climate crisis industrial complex and their cheerleaders.

    Who lied about polar bear extinction? Disappearing islands? Three meter - or more - sea level rise? Malaria spreading due to The Warming? The list goes on. And NONE of this was accidental.


    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 10:58pm on 18 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Wolfiewoods #113

    They do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Wolfie, looks like you have a fan in izeezee.

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 11:02pm on 18 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #146. Paul Butler wrote:

    "You look like a conspiracy theorist to me..."

    Sorry Paul, but that label just doesn't work anymore.

    And, despite the title, Watts does not claim that that meeting was secret... if you read that article you would know that.

    And I would hope that "the team" would be getting more "flexible" now that their 'tricks' have been exposed.

    But why did you call it a "team"? Are you some kind of conspiracy theorist?

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 11:09pm on 18 Nov 2010, andrew9999 wrote:

    Blunderbunny

    Been through all of my post back to Feb this year before I got bored.

    I've complained about Metar weather stations back in april/may sometime and suggested that might be a cause of the GISS winter temp anomoly.

    I've pointed out that the MWP was a global thing(mentioned hemispheres)

    I've pointed out with data that last winter was not mild in the UK.

    But the statement, as quoted, is simply untrue."

    Well my apologies.

    What winter temperature anomaly was that, not that great fat high temperature anomaly all winter over northern Canada and Greenland you can see on the satellite data?


    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 11:27pm on 18 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #149. CanadianRockies wrote:

    "You look like a conspiracy theorist to me..."

    Sorry Paul, but that label just doesn't work anymore.


    It does for me ;-)
    And a few other people, I should add

    And, despite the title, Watts does not claim that that meeting was secret... if you read that article you would know that.

    Technically, no. But he still managed to use the s-word


    But why did you call it a "team"? Are you some kind of conspiracy theorist?


    Ah, but I put it in "scare quotes". Makes all the difference


    And to move on to your #147 ...
    Sure. Go ahead. Find something that came from the 'skeptical' side that compares with the outright lies and deceptions promoted by the climate crisis industrial complex and their cheerleaders.

    Trouble is, this begs an awful lot of questions that can't really be answered without deconstructing the whole statement. But the worst thing I can say about the climate scientists is that they might have interpreted the limited palaeoclimate evidence wrongly. The best you can say about the anti-AGW people is that they are sincere but naive and the worst you can say about (some) of them is that they are indeed deceitful.

    Who lied about polar bear extinction? Disappearing islands? Three meter - or more - sea level rise? Malaria spreading due to The Warming?
    Whatever you may say about a prediction, you can't call it a lie. You can only lie about something that is already a current fact.

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 11:33pm on 18 Nov 2010, andrew9999 wrote:

    oops forgot the opening quotation marks for blunderbunnys remarks in 150

    Heavens someone might think I'm a Wattite.

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 11:40pm on 18 Nov 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    Kambo at 127 presents a level of geographical insight that would even make Sarah Palin blush. You do realise there is a world outside Europe and north america. Even Sarah knows about the existence of Russia! My favorite bit of the post is where you admit that the American right is entirely impervious to evidence on the subject of climate change...

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 01:08am on 19 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #151. Paul Butler wrote:

    "But the worst thing I can say about the climate scientists is that they might have interpreted the limited palaeoclimate evidence wrongly."

    Tooooo funny.

    "The best you can say about the anti-AGW people is that they are sincere but naive and the worst you can say about (some) of them is that they are indeed deceitful."

    Very revealing that you use the term "anti-AGW." Says a lot. The real term is pro-science people.

    But no. The best I can say about people like our Canadian hero Steve McIntyre is that they independently showed that the data was bogus and, in doing so, showed the world that this whole thing was and is a scam.

    In the meantime, the so-called scientists who were getting paid to find anything that could support the orthodoxy were acting like blinklered sheep, more concerned about peer pressure and their careers than about real scientific enquiry.

    "Whatever you may say about a prediction, you can't call it a lie. You can only lie about something that is already a current fact."

    OK. They lied about the certainty of their predictions. And they lied by omission when they stayed silent when the media added to this. Pathetic.

    Finally, please provide one example to support your claim that what you call "anti-AGW people" are either "naive" or "deceitful."

    Here's an example of true naivete (at best): "But the worst thing I can say about the climate scientists is that they might have interpreted the limited palaeoclimate evidence wrongly."

    Happy Climategate Day! One year of light!

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 05:26am on 19 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    # 154. CanadianRockies wrote:

    "The best you can say about the anti-AGW people is that they are sincere but naive and the worst you can say about (some) of them is that they are indeed deceitful."

    Very revealing that you use the term "anti-AGW." Says a lot. The real term is pro-science people.


    Funnily enough I was thinking about collaring that term for my side of this debate. But it could lead to a long discussion for which I have no time right now.

    But no. The best I can say about people like our Canadian hero Steve McIntyre is that they independently showed that the data was bogus and, in doing so, showed the world that this whole thing was and is a scam.

    My understanding is that McIntyre's main objection is to Mann's methods rather than his data (although I believe he also disagrees with some of Mann'a data selection)

    I also think McIntyre is on record as saying that if he were in government he would be taking steps to address climate change


    Finally, please provide one example to support your claim that what you call "anti-AGW people" are either "naive" or "deceitful."

    Well, naivete is evident in any op ed by people like Monkton or Delingpole or Booker or Corbyn who fail to address the genuine complexity of the science, who assume unlikely conspiracies (the underlying view of your posts of course) and who present unreviewed pseudo science as if it was self evident.

    As for deceit - well, I took care to emphasize it was the "worst you could say". I'd need to prove intent to satisfy you (something which obviously doesn't bother you when you attack real climate scientists, to judge from the tenor of some of your posts). However, I'm about to read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes, and I'm sure there will be some tasty examples in there.

    Cheers

    Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 08:25am on 19 Nov 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    Back to Cancun:

    In an interview with the German publication, NZZ am Sonntag, German economist and joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the IPCC tells us AGW is now about redistribution of wealth (as if we didn't already know!):

    http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 09:00am on 19 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    canadian + paul.

    Chaps, cease and desist! :-)

    There is NO massive conspiracy and I’m sure most sensible skeptics don't think so either, but there is (and apologies Paul there can be little debate on this fact) evidence of group think contamination- specifically with regard to the scientific process.

    Do i think climate scientists are evil people out to defraud the planet? -no, of course not.
    Do i think that they perhaps got caught up in the 'avalanche' surrounding their own theory? -perhaps.
    do i think they've lost objectivity? -definitely.

    But note, that none of these directly impact the theory itself- only the scientific integrity of those presenting it.

    The mains points of contention are-
    -climate sensitivity,
    -lack of real-world observational corroboration and over reliance on models
    -poor understanding of climate
    -data quality

    You'd get further discussing these rather than taking swipes at each others ideological positions. Play the ball chaps, not the man.

    @ jane et al re-the emails.

    As has already been pointed out it matters not a jot if they were stolen or leaked (though from a political viewpoint it matters greatly) only that they were released.

    Incidentally, i do not buy for one second that the police are still investigating the source. I know how to track an IP across the world and i have exceptionally basic IT knowledge, my brother who's in IT informs me that it should take no longer than a few days to get the relevant information (depending on the servers used and their information 'release' requirements- though legal needs usually trump privacy laws)- this of course assuming it WAS an external 'hack'.

    There is simply no technical reason why the 'perpetrator' has not been found and collared.
    There are only 3 logical explanations
    1- they are incompetent and cannot find the 'external' hacker.
    2- they have found the hacker but are under political pressure not to release the information.
    3- they have found that it was not an external hack (i.e. it was a leak) and are under political pressure not to release the information.

    There are no other options- take your pick.


    @ Paul
    i'm still reading that link, apologies it's taking me longer than i thought, i'm not naturally gifted with math so have to concentrate quite hard for it to sink in. I've found it interesting to say the least, it's answered a few of my questions but also raised a few more (typical). I'm still of the opinion that the models are flawed- but i stress i'm only half way through so that may well change as i get further in. Cheers LM

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 09:48am on 19 Nov 2010, Tim wrote:

    I've read some posts that state that because the highest instantaneous temperature ever recorded was some time ago, the world is not on average getting hotter.
    If you want to do any kind of statistical analysis, you have to have a large enough sample size. That's why average temperature is more important and I read here (and in many other places) that the average temperature is indeed creeping up:
    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html

    NASA build, operate and deliver the instruments that measure this stuff. That is science in action. I'll trust them over trolls/shills/numpties on internet forums, thankyouverymuch.

    Now, I hope GW is false as much as anybody. I've got no desire to see the world get any warmer at all. I'm very much a cold, dry weather person.
    I just don't conflate what I want with what I see.
    I also don't get my pay checks from the oil industry. Looking at the energy (ha) people put into discrediting the science and the scientists themselves, either you -really- don't want to face up to the fact that your 4x4 and holidays might be causing some problems or you're trying to engineer some FUD for your paymasters. If that is the case with anybody here, I doubt any kind of appeal to morality will have any effect but I'll try anyway:

    The things we are doing as a species can and are having an effect on our climate. There are so many of us that practically everything we do on an industrial scale is going to have some effect. It is foolish to deny the evidence and claim otherwise. Please stop trying to frustrate any attempt to improve things.

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 10:59am on 19 Nov 2010, quake wrote:

    Re 132

    "HIGHEST TEMPERATURES WORLDWIDE

    World Libya 1922 58C
    N America Death Valley 1913 57C
    Asia Israel 1942 54C
    Australia Queensland 1889 53C
    Europe Spain 1881 50C
    S America Argentina 1905 49C
    Canada Saskatchewan 1937 45C
    Oceania Philippines 1912 42C
    Antarctica Vanda Station 1974 15C"

    The world is indeed warmer than it was 30 years ago, let alone 80 years ago. So the question is why, despite this, have continents not broken new records at some location.

    The answer is one of statistics and limited sample size. Records for *continents* over the last *100 years* sounds like a big statistic until you realize that records can only be broken during a small part of the year and in small areas of the continent.

    For example Europe is a big area, but a new temperature record for Europe is never going to be made in Iceland is it? The record in the list is for Spain, which is sufficiently far south to make sense.

    A new record is also not going to be made in November, or January, or March, but in a summer month.

    So the record making is greatly restricted to areas in the South of Europe during summer. A much smaller area and a much smaller timescale that reduces the probability of a record being broken in a warming world.

    I suggest to solve these problems by instead looking at "HIGHEST TEMPERATURE *ANOMALIES* WORLDWIDE". That would pick up unusual records during winter and in higher latitudes of Europe too. My guess is that by doing that you would see a lot of new records in recent years. Especially also if the analysis incorperates more samples by doing a "Top 10 records of Europe, Asia, etc" rather than just the top record of each continent.

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 11:20am on 19 Nov 2010, Eric wrote:

    On Forming An Opinion

    "In the matter of slavish imitation, man is the monkey's superior all the time. The average man is destitute of independence of opinion. He is not interested in contriving an opinion of his own, by study and reflection, but is only anxious to find out what his neighbor's opinion is and slavishly adopt it."
    MARK TWAIN

    So many opine on climate change- You want to believe in Santa OK, You want to believe in your version of faith OK, you can believe in AGW that is also OK-- just do not confuse belief with fact or something that is opinion, taste or preferance with something either suppported or not supported by data.

    At this point we have a 1 degree increase in 200 years. The AGW belief is that the model of the week is correct and AGW is true. If the model does not agree we change the model or the data! So many say it is so but do not understand the facts or history of the subject.

    The rest is fear, hate, envy, and greed disguised as science in my opinion

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 11:35am on 19 Nov 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Paul Butler and Andrew999

    Sorry chaps, bit sore of head this morning, my own fault, but I'm a tad delcate so I'll do this slowly.

    Paul:

    You make a fair point, that I'm happy to accept uncertainies if the paper says, what I want to hear. I'd argue that you're guilty of the same, but it was a fair point.

    It is possible that the tropospheric humidity trends from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems with the instrumentation and operation of the global radiosonde network from which the data are derived, but they are consistent and they should at least be classed as interesting and you have to admit, that both the models and the satellite measurements have their own problems.

    Andrew:

    I'm really not sure what point you're now trying to make, but I thank you for the apology.

    The GISS winter anomaly, does potentially have a source in data quality errors. Indeed, those very errors changed the temperature of finland by 11+ degrees last winter/spring, which came as a bit of a shock the finnish met office. GISS corrected this, but that's only because people complained about it officially, Left as it was, it would now be part of the temperature record and it's difficult to prove things wrong in retrospect.

    Anyway, time for some sort of tablet/bacon experience

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 11:48am on 19 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    i also agree that using historical high temp anomolies does not prove that the world is not getting warmer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 12:00pm on 19 Nov 2010, Tim wrote:

    #160:
    The only thing I believe in is evidence so don't pull up that daft piece of insulting misdirection; that 'belief' in climate change is some sort of religion or Santa proxy.
    No, I am merely concerned that our actions as a species are altering our climate in ways that may eventually prove catastrophic for us.
    As I said before, I sincerely hope that this isn't the case. I'd rather have egg on my face than be correct, in this case.
    You didn't back up your '1 degree in 200 years' with any references. That said, even 1 degree is a lot when you're talking about average temperatures over a non-geological period of time.
    Rather than coherent arguments against the whole idea that we can and are changing our climate, I see a lot of wishful thinking from people who don't want to admit that what they do can cause problems. I see a lot of hard data suggesting that we ARE causing problems.

    >>The rest is fear, hate, envy, and greed disguised as science in my opinion

    Fear: yes, I am afraid of what might happen if we don't start acting like responsible hominids.
    Hate: What? I don't hate anybody. I dislike a whole bunch of people but hate is too strong a word.
    Envy: Err, no. I don't want a 4x4, that doesn't mean I can't afford one.
    Greed?
    This takes the biscuit. Greed is wanting to continue profiting from harmful practices. Greed is tobacco companies telling you that smoking is good for you (I smoked for years, it isn't). Greed is oil companies telling you that global warming doesn't exist.
    Scientists don't get paid that much. I know, I used to be a research scientist myself. There are far easier ways to make money than to invent a global conspiracy just to get some paltry research funding.
    As dastardly plots go, that would be pretty weak.
    So, balancing out the various vested interests, I choose to place more weight on what modestly funded researchers are showing me, rather than what the extremely well funded fossil fuel industries are telling me. The researches have little to gain, the energy giants have everything to lose.




    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 12:33pm on 19 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ tim # 163
    "So, balancing out the various vested interests, I choose to place more weight on what modestly funded researchers are showing me, rather than what the extremely well funded fossil fuel industries are telling me. The researches have little to gain, the energy giants have everything to lose."

    Tim, you cannot possible be this ill informed on the funding side so i am going to assume you said that on purpose knowing it was a lie. Bad form, it's pretty clear by now just which side has the larger funding.

    As an aside i'd like to add that i'm a cAGW skeptic (for now) and i recylce, only drive when necessary, believe we should be doing more to protect the planet, it's habitats and the organisms in them. That man can do significantly more to lessen his impact on the environment. that unchecked capatalism (despite being an ardent capatalist) is ultimatley damaging and that most people would be far happier if they ditched the pursit of money and power over everything else. That people should do more to grow their own food- support local farmers and do what they can to improve the standards of (food chain) animal welfare. that alternatives to oil must be found and quickly and that clean, renewable energy (not wind or solar at present) is the way forward.
    But i also think cAGW is not supported by the evidence at present.

    To try to suggest that anyone who is counter cAGW is a big oil funded shill who burns car tyres for fun is just the same as suggesting all climate scientists are in on some big conspiracy- it's a fallacy that only exists in prejudiced minds.

    May i suggest you desist from this line of reasoning and actually address what people say rather than what you think they are saying/represent. It only reflects poorly on yourself.

    This goes for both sides of the debate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 12:56pm on 19 Nov 2010, Tim wrote:

    >>May i suggest you desist from this line of reasoning and actually >>address what people say rather than what you think they are >>saying/represent. It only reflects poorly on yourself.
    I've only waded in here because I'm tired of seeing the one sided diatribes on the BBCs climate blog. I don't believe that every person who denies the evidence for AGW is a shill but I'm certain that some are. That's just sensible, if rotten, PR if AGW is tantamount to a damning criticism of your core business.
    Can you deny that there's been an enormous amount of FUD surrounding this issue and can you deny that the source of this is the oil industry?
    >>not wind or solar at present
    I wouldn't say that. There have been great strides in making solar energy affordable (Nanosolar have a printing process for cells and those big desert tower things are simple and efficient) and wind works too.
    The bigger issue is energy storage but we can only benefit from the continued active research into new battery and capacitor technologies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 1:15pm on 19 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    "Can you deny that there's been an enormous amount of FUD surrounding this issue "
    not sure what you mean by FUD.

    "and can you deny that the source of this is the oil industry?"

    if you mean funding, then i think you'll find that the amount of money put into 'anti' campagins is dwarfed by the 'pro' campaigns.

    Seriously- there's articles on this recently- the pro side money is something like a factor of 100 larger than the anti side.

    Re- solar. my issues are the lifespans of the dyes, the toxic byproducts of these dyes, the disposal of the dyes and the amount of energy (coal powered as most is supllied by china) which goes into making these dyes.

    solar WILL become a viable power source, at present however it just isn't. Same with wind- though that's even LESS usefull.

    Geothermal, tidal and gravity based power supplies are the way forward.

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 1:23pm on 19 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    info re my post # 166

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058598/global-warming-fraud-the-tide-begins-to-turn/

    dellingpole- but the links are good (re the money).

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 2:48pm on 19 Nov 2010, BlueRock wrote:

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

  • 169. At 2:52pm on 19 Nov 2010, Brunnen wrote:

    #166. At 1:15pm on 19 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:
    Geothermal, tidal and gravity based power supplies are the way forward.

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

    Actually, those forms of generating electricity as early stage as solar and wind.

    The way forward for cheap, abundant, clean energy is (and always has been) nuclear. Too bad the watermelons hate that word so much. They bleat about CO2, mindlessly repeating whatever talking point The Gaurdian and Al Gore have given them this week and yet when the one VIABLE alternative to meeting the planet's energy needs is mentioned, hands are thrown up in horror.

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 3:07pm on 19 Nov 2010, Robert Lucien wrote:

    #166. At 1:15pm on 19 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    ' ..."and can you deny that the source of this is the oil industry?"

    if you mean funding, then i think you'll find that the amount of money put into 'anti' campagins is dwarfed by the 'pro' campaigns.

    Seriously- there's articles on this recently- the pro side money is something like a factor of 100 larger than the anti side.
    '

    Agree with you mostly LabMunky certainly on energy. But given that the oil industry has at least a trillion dollars of free money slushing around thast puts the environmental campaigners at pretty rich, at least 100 trillion dollars. At that amount of money even the most extreme science fiction solutions I am interested should begin to become possible. Maybe shifting the human population to Mars, or freezing everyone in carbonite? :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 3:10pm on 19 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @169

    yes i know, but they are constant energy sources unlike wind which is intermittant and solar whith it's toxic by products.

    And geothermal is already available privatley.

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 3:10pm on 19 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #157. LabMunkey wrote:
    canadian + paul.

    Chaps, cease and desist! :-)

    You'd get further discussing these rather than taking swipes at each others ideological positions. Play the ball chaps, not the man.


    Absolutely right. I really do try not to get into that kind of argument - but I think CR and me got into a bit of mutual provocation there, with me deliberately using warmist buzz words which were probably somewhat intended to press his buttons (sorry CR:-) )

    Just a point on this

    but there is (and apologies Paul there can be little debate on this fact) evidence of group think contamination- specifically with regard to the scientific process.

    Its a question of how you move forward when your data are minimal and uncertain. I think things have moved on since Mann's original hockey stick was the only game in town. There are now more proxy archives, and the scientists are looking at more sophisticated ways of processing them and including them in the models. Hence the "secret" meeting in Portugal referred to upthread. The important point is not so much how warm it was during the Medieval Climate Anomaly/MWP, but the drivers behind it and how it might have propagated worldwide and the extent to which modern warming may or may not have the same drivers.

    So, yes there has been some defensiveness - you can see this in the climategate emails and in the relatively closed access to contrarians on RealClimate.

    I actually don't think the challenges posed by people like McIntyre, Lindzen and Pielke are by any means bad in themselves (even though McIntyre and Watts in particular do also provide echo chambers for what I regard as very negative attitudes to the whole field - I find people like Monkton, for example, scientifically illiterate). I think in the long run the effect of these challenges will be to tighten up data collection and processing standards.


    Finally kudos to you for reading that document about the models in detail. While it probably won't convince you that they aren't flawed, I hope it does convince you that the effort to improve them is worthwhile.

    Cheers, Paul :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 3:14pm on 19 Nov 2010, Tim wrote:

    Thanks for the links. Yeah... Dellingpole, he sure puts the Pole in polemic.

    Ok, so if link#1 is to be believed, there has been a lot of government funding in to climate change research. Well, it's kind of heartening to see that governments do spend money reacting to research conclusions.

    Do you remember the Y2k bug? Despite the naysayers, that was a big fat problem. A bunch of money was spent fixing it by bringing old Cobol programmers out of retirement to allow legacy systems to store dates in 4 digits.

    We'll only know if that money was well spent if we went back in time and played the whole thing again without fixing it to see if any reactors went into melt down. However, even if some of the more news worthy claims were exaggerated, it certainly was a problem and it was fixed by hard work.

    I'd say a large chunk of research spending into climate change would be in the launching and developing of satellites to monitor our climate.
    Personally, I think that's money well spent.

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 3:15pm on 19 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #169. Brunnen wrote:

    The way forward for cheap, abundant, clean energy is (and always has been) nuclear. Too bad the watermelons hate that word so much. They bleat about CO2, mindlessly repeating whatever talking point The Gaurdian and Al Gore have given them this week and yet when the one VIABLE alternative to meeting the planet's energy needs is mentioned, hands are thrown up in horror.


    No Brunnen they (we?) don't. Your comment is a rank generalization. Some greenies have a kneejerk reaction to nuclear, others have decided that if we're going to be serious about a response to climate change, nuclear has to be part of the mix.

    Now what about you - do you think its worth continuing to research into renewables, or should we just junk the lot?

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 3:16pm on 19 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ paul

    "I hope it does convince you that the effort to improve them is worthwhile."
    that was never in doubt paul- improvement is always something to strive for.

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 3:18pm on 19 Nov 2010, Tim wrote:

    >>Maybe shifting the human population to Mars, or freezing everyone in >>carbonite? :)

    Sign me up for Mars! We could do with some global warming there, although the lack of magnetic field might be problematic. Also, the wife my take some convincing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 3:21pm on 19 Nov 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Paul Butler #172 wrote:

    Its a question of how you move forward when your data are minimal and uncertain.

    You've given no thought at all to the idea that observations test theories rather than function as a basis for them, have you?

    The very idea is too alien to you to make you even snort in your sleep. Enjoy your dogmatic slumbers!

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 3:22pm on 19 Nov 2010, Brunnen wrote:

    #163. At 12:00pm on 19 Nov 2010, Tim wrote:

    So, balancing out the various vested interests, I choose to place more weight on what modestly funded researchers are showing me, rather than what the extremely well funded fossil fuel industries are telling me. The researches have little to gain, the energy giants have everything to lose.

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

    Would those be the same "modestly funded" researchers who have recieved $79 BILLION in funding since 1989 in the USA alone? Please, tell us some more about these impoverished martyrs...

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 3:27pm on 19 Nov 2010, Tim wrote:

    >>Some greenies have a kneejerk reaction to nuclear

    True, some people do. What I want to know why is nuclear waste ever waste? Surely if it's still chucking out radiation, it's still a viable energy source? Or do we not have any effective way of capturing the energy after a few half-lives?

    In the meantime, I think that even at the current efficiencies and even at the UK's latitude, ubiquitous, cheap photovoltaic should be a game changer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 3:33pm on 19 Nov 2010, Brunnen wrote:

    #174. At 3:15pm on 19 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:
    Now what about you - do you think its worth continuing to research into renewables, or should we just junk the lot?

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

    Research, certainly. I'll even take the alternatives seriously when they can reliably produce the same amount of energy as coal or gas and don't rely on killing Chinese people to make them (solar power, I'm looking in your direction).

    As for you taking umbrage at my statement regarding the reaction to the mention of the n word (no, not THAT one, nuclear) I specified watermelon environmentalists. Green on the outside, red on the inside. Are you one of them?

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 3:35pm on 19 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    # 177. bowmanthebard wrote:

    You've given no thought at all to the idea that observations test theories rather than function as a basis for them, have you?

    The very idea is too alien to you to make you even snort in your sleep. Enjoy your dogmatic slumbers!


    Look Bowman, I've already been criticized once (rightly) for getting into a hatefest with another poster, so I'm not going to get into another one with you :-) I know you yourself have some fairly (dogmatic?) views on hypothesis testing. Sadly you'll have to explain them again and why I have apparently failed them before I can respond informatively.

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 3:41pm on 19 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LabMunkey #157

    You do know about IP spoofing, don't you? Various sneaky ways IT criminals can hide their identity online.

    And then what happens if the IP is genuine, but belongs to an internet café? Or a borrowed PC / connection? Or a leaky Wi-Fi network? Or is in a country with weak IT law enforcement?

    Now I'm no IT security expert. But there are some experts over at Symantec, they seem to think it a going concern
    http://www.symantec.com/connect/articles/ip-spoofing-introduction
    http://uk.norton.com/familyresources/resources.jsp?title=safe-wi-fi-connection

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 3:43pm on 19 Nov 2010, Brunnen wrote:

    #179. At 3:27pm on 19 Nov 2010, Tim wrote:

    What I want to know why is nuclear waste ever waste? Surely if it's still chucking out radiation, it's still a viable energy source? Or do we not have any effective way of capturing the energy after a few half-lives?

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

    We can easily use spent fuel rods again. It's called nuclear reprocessing. In fact it's 97% efficent and as such can be reprocessed many times.

    Unfortanately, in countries like the USA, it is illegal to reprocess spent fuel rods and they must instead be buried deep underground. We have the greenies to thank for that one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 3:44pm on 19 Nov 2010, Tim wrote:

    >>Would those be the same "modestly funded" researchers who have received >>$79 BILLION in funding since 1989 in the USA alone? Please, tell us some >>more about these impoverished martyrs...

    Well, I'd need a detailed breakdown of where that $79 billion went. If you're including anything that could even tangentially be connected with furthering some conspiratorial green agenda then that could include every weather satellite that's been sent up in the USA since 1989.

    I guess shills, smear campaigns, stealing emails and taking them out of context are pretty cheap compared to satellites and Antarctic ice-core projects. Sorry, getting rather cross again.

    I hear the clean-up in the gulf is going to cost a fair bit, if we needed any more reason to find alternatives.

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 3:54pm on 19 Nov 2010, Tim wrote:

    >>You've given no thought at all to the idea that observations test >>theories rather than function as a basis for them, have you?

    Surely that cuts both ways. Is it not acceptable to see an effect and then theorize as to what might cause it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 3:58pm on 19 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    @jane.

    there is that possibility, but given the size of the files and techniques employed the odds are on a 'private' use (so i've been told).

    Again, yes there are numerous ways to bounce IP's, leave apparent dead ends and generally misslead. But with the resources the police have to bear it should still only take a relatively short time to track them down.

    they certainly could CONFIRM it was a hack by releasing the initial IP logs to show the source was external. that would prove it beyond doubt in about, oh i don't know, 3 seconds.

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 4:07pm on 19 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    # 180. Brunnen wrote:

    As for you taking umbrage at my statement regarding the reaction to the mention of the n word (no, not THAT one, nuclear) I specified watermelon environmentalists. Green on the outside, red on the inside. Are you one of them?


    Oh I see. No I don't think I'm "red", although I do support a kind of social democracy on a western European model so I suppose there are people across the pond who'd think I was a tad socialist.

    Anyway, what I'm trying to get around to is that I'm not convinced that watermelon greens are more likely to have a kneejerk anti-nuclear response than the ones who are green all the way through. There's the waste issue for a start ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 4:34pm on 19 Nov 2010, Tim wrote:

    @ #187
    There's the waste issue for a start ...

    As Brunnen pointed out, by reprocessing we could cut the waste problem down hugely, whilst also getting a longer useful life out of the fuel.
    I understand there are concerns about the use of reproceded fuel in weapons. Anyway, we need to continue to actively research nuclear but use what we have, even though it isn't perfect.
    The same goes for wind, solar, tidal and practically every other energy generation method. The more the merrier in fact as you certainly don't want all your eggs in one basket when it comes to energy.

    Maybe one day > break even fusion will be less than 50 years away.

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 4:40pm on 19 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LabMunkey #186

    Just because the police might be in a position to keep the public better informed, doesn't mean that they will do. And that's always assuming that any official announcement wouldn't tip off some criminal.

    Be fair, with the cuts on the way the police have got manpower worries to deal with, and the main effect of telling the public part of the story will be that more of the public hassle them for the rest.

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 4:43pm on 19 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @CanadianRockies #147

    Actually I quite like the 2003 Iraq war metaphor. I think it illustrates perfectly how scientific experts provide caveats that get ignored by politicians keen for a simple interpretation to push their message.

    Perhaps Jones's and Mann's biggest mistake was to fail to anticipate the way that the caveats about the Hockey Sticks (such as "divergence" being still the ongoing subject of debate amongst mainstream climate scientists) would get stripped out at the first opportunity by over eager activists and politicians.

    What was the Iraq War term for such material. Oh yes, "sexed up".

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3895135.stm


    In the meantime you may need reminding that Mann used RealClimate to try and get across the fact that Hockey Sticks were not the "proof" of AGW.

    "MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth.

    This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth’s surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this conclusion is the evidence from so-called “Detection and Attribution Studies”. Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)."


    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 4:43pm on 19 Nov 2010, Brunnen wrote:

    As I said Paul, if it weren't for the greens, nuclear waste would be a non issue. It's 97% recyclable, which is impressive by any standard.

    And of course, we have to consider that globally wind power has caused more fatalities than nuclear power (yes, including Chernobyl).

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 5:11pm on 19 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LabMunkey #164
    (@Tim)

    Reminder. There are a lot of Gerlich and Tscheucheners out there. And quite a few Oliver K Manuels.

    You might like to make it clear that your main objection to mainstream AGW is you think mainstream climate scientists overestimate climate sensitivity (hence the c for "catastrophic" in your reference to cAGW), and that many of your reasons are not dismissed out of hand by the mainstream.

    Olly and his iron sun. Bless.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQZe_Qk-q7M

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 5:13pm on 19 Nov 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    i see Stern is threatening the USA if they don't deliver in Cancun - probably has the Americans trembling in their boots ;)

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 5:26pm on 19 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #191. Brunnen wrote:

    And of course, we have to consider that globally wind power has caused more fatalities than nuclear power (yes, including Chernobyl).



    Where does that info come from? (I hope you're not just talking about the birds!)

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 5:46pm on 19 Nov 2010, Brunnen wrote:

    No no,Paul. I'm talking about people.

    Sadly you'll have to wade through this rather lengthy report to confirm my claim, but nuclear power has caused less deaths, human deaths, than ANY other form of mass generating electricity.

    http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 6:10pm on 19 Nov 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:


    Brunnen #191: globally wind power has caused more fatalities than nuclear power (yes, including Chernobyl).

    Paul Butler #194: Where does that info come from? (I hope you're not just talking about the birds!)

    Never seen Bride of Frankenstein? Those windmill things are lethal!

    http://movieclips.com/iJnZX-frankenstein-movie-windmill-burns-down/

    I'd say it's statistically inevitable that more workers have been killed in farming accidents involving windmills than in or near nuclear power plants.

    But the real danger of wind power -- in the future -- is that more expensive energy means more expensive food, and that means more people live "on the margins", vulnerable to diseases of malnutrition or even famines. And that spells death, not just fewer humans being born.

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 6:17pm on 19 Nov 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke #190 wrote:

    scientific experts provide caveats that get ignored by politicians keen for a simple interpretation to push their message

    Actually, I don't think that's true at all. Scientists are all partisans for their own theory (perhaps we should say "paradigm" or ideology), and tend to sweep its weaknesses under the rug, to hide it from their opponents and even themselves. They sincerely turn a blind eye to its failings.

    Another mistake we nearly all make (not just scientists) is that scientific knowledge is brilliant, but not because it's secure or certain. It's actually very insecure and uncertain. It is brilliant because of its penetrating power -- its ability to reveal the hidden structure of reality. But it buys its penetrating power at the cost of its certainty.

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 6:39pm on 19 Nov 2010, Brunnen wrote:

    196. At 6:10pm on 19 Nov 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    I'd say it's statistically inevitable that more workers have been killed in farming accidents involving windmills than in or near nuclear power plants.

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

    Apparently the leading cause of accidents involving wind energy farms is "blade failure," which is when a turbine blade breaks, sending shrapnel flying through the air and into the body of some poor bugger in a hi-vis vest.

    I posted a link to a lengthy Swedish report on the relative deaths caused by the differing ways we make energy, sadly it has been referred for further consideration, so expect to see the link about the same time Haley's Comet returns...

    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 6:55pm on 19 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #196. bowmanthebard wrote:


    But the real danger of wind power -- in the future -- is that more expensive energy means more expensive food, and that means more people live "on the margins", vulnerable to diseases of malnutrition or even famines. And that spells death, not just fewer humans being born.


    Two things about this:
    (a) Usual point about wind power - nobody thinks it should be the only source of energy. So if its used sensibly - that is in places where its most efficient, with the baseload coming from nuclear or tidal or hydro - it should become cheaper as techniques improve

    (b) Usual point about the argument from poverty: perhaps the problem is not that energy is too expensive, but that in the unregulated system we have right now, some people are required/allowed to be too poor.

    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 6:59pm on 19 Nov 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Paul Butler #181 wrote:

    Look Bowman, I've already been criticized once (rightly) for getting into a hatefest with another poster, so I'm not going to get into another one with you :-)

    Aren't hatefests the main reason we get involved in blogs? -- I love 'em myself.

    Sadly you'll have to explain them again and why I have apparently failed them before I can respond informatively.

    All righty then. I get the impression that most people who are interested in science dismiss what philosophers of science say, and frankly I don't blame them. All the same, if like Tim you regard mainstream thinking as more trustworthy than the stuff blogging numpties come up with, almost every mainstream philosopher of science thinks your assumption that science involves starting off with "data" and then moving on to what it implies is just plain flat-footedly wrong. And if you take what mainstream scientists say about science -- the ones who have actually thought about it, reflected on its methods, and so on -- they too say that your assumption is just plain flat-footedly wrong. Mistaken.

    Now of course we all hate being corrected. But sometimes hatred of being corrected grows into an inability to learn anything new. For the love of Mike, would you please consider what mainstream philosophers of science and mainstream scientists-who-have-given-real-thought-to-the-nature-of-scientific-method say about it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 7:44pm on 19 Nov 2010, Brunnen wrote:

    @bowman

    You're absolutely right, we all hate being corrected. However, there comes a point when we just have to accept we were wrong and adjust our worldview accordingly.

    Up until about three years ago I was an advocate of the bull being spouted by the IPCC. cAGW, massive sea level rises, melting polar caps, drowning islands, dying polar bears, the lot.

    I was challenged by a friend to prove that the assumptions the AGW hypothesis was built on (and the subsequent doomcrying) had basis in fact.

    I couldn't find proof for ANY of it. In fact, I found a hell of a lot more convincing evidence showing that humans have virtually no impact on the climate.

    And thus, painful though it was, I had to admit I was wrong and adjust my worldview.

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 8:11pm on 19 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    181. Paul Butler wrote:

    "I've already been criticized once (rightly) for getting into a hatefest with another poster..."

    You mean this?

    "157. At 09:00am on 19 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:
    canadian + paul.

    Chaps, cease and desist! :-)"

    I sure don't see our conversation as anything approaching a "hatefest" of involving "hate" at all. Of course, in our Orwellian age that word has been turned into mush to be used as desired anyways... as in the selective labelling of "hate crimes" and all that.

    Remarkable how accurate Orwell's 1984 really was!

    For my part, I simply have zero respect for the activists masquerading as scientists who have been leading and perpetrating what is, to me, such an obvious megafraud. Like Jones and Mann. So, I address them with all due respect - and none is due. The same, squared, for the whitewashers and the propagandists which support them.

    But back to #157, where LabMunkey wrote:

    "There is NO massive conspiracy..."

    Maybe LM and you need to read the link provided at #156 from MangoC (or the same report an wattsupwiththat) which he accurately summarized as:

    "In an interview with the German publication, NZZ am Sonntag, German economist and joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the IPCC tells us AGW is now about redistribution of wealth (as if we didn't already know!)"

    Get it... yet? Follow the money. And don't be fooled into thinking that it will actually go the the poor folks. Massive layers of Wall Streeter middlemen and planet savers - the eco-crisis industrial complex - all need new shoes, apparently.

    Then LabM writes: "but there is... evidence of group think contamination-specifically with regard to the scientific process."

    And this groupthink just happens to conveniently support that OneWorldWatermelon agenda. Do you suppose that was an accident?

    But then LabM throws this out: "Do i think climate scientists are evil people out to defraud the planet? -no, of course not."

    Sorry, LabM but that's a simplistic overgeneralization that ignores your groupthink statement. SOME so called "climate scientists" are indeed in on this but most are just hapless groupthinkers - 'good Germans' - going with the flow... except for all the "climate scientists" who courageously remained objective in the face of the mob screaming 'denier' and cutting off their access to publication, funding, career opportunities, etc.

    So, I view those so-called sceptical scientists with the utmost respect and view the lemmings with pity tinged with contempt. Lenin called such lemmings 'useful idiots.'

    In any case, the jig is up. Too late for the UK though. 18 billion pounds a year, based on this "science." Big Green Inc. thanks you.

    Happy Climategate Day!

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 8:30pm on 19 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    190. JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    "Actually I quite like the 2003 Iraq war metaphor. I think it illustrates perfectly how scientific experts provide caveats that get ignored by politicians keen for a simple interpretation to push their message."

    Great. You recognize that this AGW project is not based on science.

    All humans, including those who happen to work in "science," are political animals. So all scientists ARE politicians on some level, some much more than others.

    Is James Hansen a scientist or a politician?

    The other Big Joke is the concept that just because someone trained in some field of science they miraculously become objective monks immune to all political and economic realities. Tooooo ridiculous. Particularly given the state of modern universities/indoctrination centers.

    Back to the hockey stick. Whatever may have been stated in any actual scientific debate, that became the primary device this gang used to sell the AGW scare story to the public. How many times was it used?

    And how many times did Mann or any of his cronies make the uncertainties about it clear to the public?

    If you look into this whole sordid affair you will discover that Mann's whole skyrocketing career was based on his creation of that false icon, and it was obvious how dishonestly he did it.

    Oh well. Hockey stick. Piltdown Man. Iraqi WMDs. What next?


    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 8:59pm on 19 Nov 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Re wind power.

    If the whole equation is examined - from manufacture to delivery to installation to supporting infrastructure to maintenance to replacement - it is clear that there is zero net benefit in terms of CO2 emissions. And all for an unreliable and very expensive energy source.

    It does, however, enrich certain people at the expense of the taxpaying 'commoners.'

    Let them eat Green cake!




    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 10:18pm on 19 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #197

    There is a difference between scientists being attached to their pet theories and scientists avoiding caveats. Divergence was in the peer reviewed literature before the first Hockey Stick was published.

    And Mann included caveats of his own in the MBH 1998 paper. Here's the concluding paragraph (sorry, can't link, pdf). He's hardly claiming it's cast in iron is he?

    "As larger numbers of high-quality proxy reconstructions become available in diverse regions of the globe, it may be possible to assimilate a more globally representative multiproxy data network. Given the high level of skill possible in large-scale reconstruction back to 1400 with the present network, it is reasonable to hope that it may soon be possible to faithfully reconstruct mean global temperatures back over the entire millennium, resolving for example the enigmatic7 medieval period. Geothermal measurements from boreholes50 recover long-term temperature trends without many of the complications of traditional proxy indicators and, in combination with traditional multiproxy networks, may prove helpful in better resolving trends over many centuries. With a better knowledge of how the climate has varied before the twentieth century, we will be able to place even better constraints on the importance of natural and anthropogenic factors governing the climate of the past few centuries, factors which will no doubt continue to affect climate variability in the future, in addition to any anthropogenic effects."

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 10:28pm on 19 Nov 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @CanadianRockies #203

    I don't know where you draw the line between relevant science and "this AGW project". So I can't answer that question.

    The scientists may not be monks, but there is a world of difference between their attitudes to the science and the non-scientist politician attitudes. And that applies on both sides of the debate.

    I would like to discuss Hansen further with you. But that looks like another marathon discussion.

    I am not ceding the debate, just anticipating this thread closing very soon.

    Complain about this comment

  • 207. At 10:32pm on 19 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #202. CanadianRockies wrote:

    181. Paul Butler wrote:

    "I've already been criticized once (rightly) for getting into a hatefest with another poster..."

    You mean this?

    "157. At 09:00am on 19 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:
    canadian + paul.

    Chaps, cease and desist! :-)"

    I sure don't see our conversation as anything approaching a "hatefest" of involving "hate" at all. Of course, in our Orwellian age that word has been turned into mush to be used as desired anyways... as in the selective labelling of "hate crimes" and all that.


    The point is, Canadian, I don't mind discussing things the way we were discussing them, I think it can be quite stimulating. but it does look a bit like a hatefest to outsiders, so when you say this ....

    For my part, I simply have zero respect for the activists masquerading as scientists who have been leading and perpetrating what is, to me, such an obvious megafraud. Like Jones and Mann. So, I address them with all due respect - and none is due. The same, squared, for the whitewashers and the propagandists which support them.

    ... I suppose to the extent that I regard Jones and Mann as sincere (even if they turn out in the end to have beeen mistaken), I'm in that last group. Which means you treat me with no respect squared (which I suppose is still no respect).

    Fine. I can deal with that. But you have to accept that its no basis for a discussion which is going to have any interest for anybody else in this thread. Whereas when I talk to LM, well we still may not end up agreeing, but we are at least discussing (in my opinion) the substantive issues.

    Later on you say this

    So, I view those so-called sceptical scientists with the utmost respect and view the lemmings with pity tinged with contempt. Lenin called such lemmings 'useful idiots.'

    But I think the "sceptical scientists" - if you mean people like Pielke, Lindzen, Spencer - are far closer to Mann et al than they are to your view. Because they accept the basic physics, even if they are in a minority in how they interpret it.

    OK? I will engage with you from time to time, but I honestly haven't got the time or energy to get into the sticky details of all the stuff you say ...

    All the best, though

    Cheers, Paul

    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 10:41pm on 19 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #200. bowmanthebard wrote:

    Aren't hatefests the main reason we get involved in blogs? -- I love 'em myself.


    Well OK, but I'm just a bit aware that other people aren't too interested ...

    almost every mainstream philosopher of science thinks your assumption that science involves starting off with "data" and then moving on to what it implies is just plain flat-footedly wrong. And if you take what mainstream scientists say about science -- the ones who have actually thought about it, reflected on its methods, and so on -- they too say that your assumption is just plain flat-footedly wrong. Mistaken.

    So what did I originally say, and did I mean what you think I meant?

    Paul Butler #172 wrote:

    Its a question of how you move forward when your data are minimal and uncertain.


    So basically, we go back to the start of climate reconstructions, when there's some kind of match between (say) tree rings and temperature - but it may not be consistent through the period of instrumental measurement.

    Am I, in fact starting with the data?

    When I do the reconstruction, am I not assuming (whether or not with any justification) some kind of principle of uniformity - that what happened in the past is similar to what happens now. That is a fundamental underlying principle of geology.

    Does that help you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 10:55pm on 19 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:

    #205. JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    And Mann included caveats of his own in the MBH 1998 paper. Here's the concluding paragraph (sorry, can't link, pdf). He's hardly claiming it's cast in iron is he?


    This is an essential point Jane, which is often (always, in some circles) forgotten. Mann would have been well aware that he was at the cutting edge in 1998 - he might have been surprised at the vehemance of some objections (probably more to do with the use that was made of his original hockey stick than with anything about the HS itself) but he wouldn't have been surprised that later reconstructions turn out to have more variability, to be a bit less HS-like (see the quote from MBH1998 in #205)

    The point, in the end, is to confirm or falsify the idea that continuing emissions of GHGs are harmful. That can only happen with sufficient amounts of data. And it certainly won't happen if relevant research is nipped in the bud.

    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.