BBC Blog Network

User Profile

zzzzzzed

Listed below are comments made by zzzzzzed between Friday, 19th June 2009 and Monday, 7th December 2009.

«Newer
Older»

A flight that almost cost me my marriage 10:43am on 07 Dec 2009 Now can we have a report about all the private jets that a flying the delegates to the Copenhagen conference? Not to mention the 1,200 limos that they have ordered - so far.
Changes to BBC Weather site 10:54am on 30 Nov 2009 Can we have an option to display temperatures, wind speeds and the jet stream?
Hacked climate e-mails and FOI 12:10pm on 24 Nov 2009 jayfurneaux wrote: “Those posting above have a clear ideological bias”

In all other fields of science it is standard practice to publish data and methods so that those with a sceptical view can test claims being made and look for problems. This is how science advances.

In climate science it has become standard practice to hide data and methods and to accuse anyone who has an even slightly differing view point of underhand political or financial motives. This has led to the growth of conspiracy theories and sceptical websites. All scientists should be sceptical about everything – the opposite of sceptical is gullible.

If the CO2 led warming theory turns out to be true, people like Phil Jones and jayfurneaux will be remembered as the ones who held back science for decades by not publishing data and allowing the full scientific peer review process to take place.
Magnetic attraction of climate 'scepticism' 2:36pm on 31 Oct 2009 I have just re-read this article and I have to say that I feel slightly insulted by it’s title - “Magnetic attraction of climate 'scepticism'“. It implies that scepticism is irrational and the result of an irresistible attraction.

I used to be a firm believer in warming (and an activist). The first time I encountered the sceptic point of view was from 2 DEFRA experts whose job it was to pushing the warming agenda but who, in private conversations, didn’t believe a word of it. I argued against them fiercely and Googled every point they raised to gather facts to defeat their arguments but soon began to realise that they had a point.

Since then I have spent 3 years spending part of most days looking into the arguments on both sides and, more importantly, looking for empirical evidence to support either point of view. So far the empirical evidence that I have come across has come down 100% to 0% on the side of the sceptics.

The arguments and papers that support CO2 led warming seem to come from a very small group of scientists Hansen, Mann, Briffa etc who review each others papers but refuse to publish data and methods. Not only that when they make the mistake of publishing in a journal that insists that data is published and independent scientists are able to check their results they often turn out to be deeply flawed. We have all heard that recent temperatures are supposed to be the warmest for over 2000 years but the actual evidence for that come from a sample of only 12 trees on the Yamal peninsula. If you use the whole set of trees (or look at thermometer readings) you get a very different result.

If the ‘warmist’ scientists want to kill scepticism stone dead all they have to do is publish some convincing evidence.
Magnetic attraction of climate 'scepticism' 11:16am on 31 Oct 2009 Richard,

Could you as Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg if it is true that corals became common in the oceans during the Ordovician Era when atmospheric CO2 levels were about 10X greater than they are today? Ask him if it is also true that the geological record shows that corals flourished for hundreds of millions of years with much higher CO2 levels and temperatures.

I would also be interested to hear in what way modern corals have changed to become more susceptible to CO2?
Biases, U-turns, and the BBC's climate coverage 5:41pm on 15 Oct 2009 soveryodd wrote:
"It’s strange that many of the contributors on here who for some reason will not accept any data or research findings that implicate carbon"

Would you care to give us some evidence that CO2 is driving climate change – or has ever driven climate change at any time in the earth’s history – I haven’t seen any yet.

CO2 levels have been up to ten times higher in the past but at the same time temperatures were much lower. The heat bubble in the lower troposphere that the IPCC says would be the indicator of CO2 led warming hasn’t been found. That is why many people are sceptical – we have looked carefully at the evidence and it doesn’t add up.

If you can produce some evidence to support the theory I would genuinely like to see it and may become a believer.
Biases, U-turns, and the BBC's climate coverage 2:52pm on 15 Oct 2009 soveryodd wrote: "are people suggesting that 6.7 billion people (rising to 9 billion by 2050) pumping waste products of all descriptions into our life supporting atmosphere and oceans at an accelerating rate can continue ad absurdum?"

You are totally missing the point. Yes we have environmental problems and yes we need to do something about them. But we need to honest and probing investigative journalism to make sure that we are tackling the correct problems in the correct way.
There is a great deal of empirical evidence now which indicates that CO2 is not cause of warming. Some of the actions being proposed now could either be irrelevant to the environment or possibly be making it worse.

There are huge vested interests behind the warming argument. Enron helped push Kyoto through because they anticipated making trillions out of CO2 trading. Most of us don’t have the time to investigate these issues so we pay for journalists through our TV licence fee to do it for us.

Remember that a strong argument will be strengthened by close investigation not weakened.
Sober exit from the ozone party 08:50am on 17 Sep 2009 "More heat trapped in the lower atmosphere means that less permeates up to the stratosphere - which is cooling as a result."

Richard, you can't get away with making statements like that - have you never heard of convection? Also CO2 absorbs heat and then radiates it at exactly the same rate. So if the lower atmosphere were being warmed due to CO2 heat absorption then more would be radiated to the stratosphere.

New discoveries are being made almost on a weekly basis about what processes drive the climate for example:
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/scientists-discover-surprise-in-101025.aspx
Climate 'meltdown', yet fusion lags 4:42pm on 19 Jun 2009 There is an interesting article (link below) about the review that J. Scott Armstrong , founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, carried out on the IPCC climate models.

He found that they violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting and that modeling was used to create scenarios (i.e., stories) to represent the scientists opinions about what might happen. The models were not intended as forecasting models.

Full text here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/#more-5370
Climate 'meltdown', yet fusion lags 4:15pm on 19 Jun 2009 Maybe as a journalist you should be investigating the models not defending them.

If you go back and look at their predictions from 10 or 20 years ago what has actually happened falls outside their 90% confidence interval yet the models have not fundamentally changed.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

zzzzzzed