Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html en-gb 30 Thu 27 Nov 2014 22:28:46 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=99#comment207 @Peter317#207Most of CACC's examples are clearly genuine misinformation. So they're ignoring misinformation you want fixed. They're only a little campaign group. They aren't the IPCC. They're more than balanced by the campaigners on your side of the debate. Or are you really arguing that the pro-AGW side has to be perfect before anyone on the pro-AGW side is worthy to debate climate change?Glad to see you agree that the original 2035 glacier claim wasn't central to the IPCC's message.As for those Pachauri links have you never been caught up in an argument where both sides say things they regret? Sat 01 May 2010 10:14:46 GMT+1 Peter317 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=99#comment206 JaneBasingstoke @205:We'll just have to agree to disagree on the CACC. You say they're against misinformation, but, from what I've seen from looking at their website, the only 'misinformation' they seem to be against is that which isn't their particular brand of misinformation.You ask why it took until late 2009 before anyone spotted the error. I would say that there was plenty of more important stuff to tackle before taking issue on some 'footnote buried away in the document'.What your BBC link doesn't tell you is that Watson was voted out of the chair of the IPCC (when he'd finished his 5-year term, incidentally) in favour of Pachauri, not only because the Bush administration didn't like him, or that sceptics thought that he was overbearing, guilty of politicising the science and practising advocacy. Many IPCC scientists, as well as most government representatives (by no means only the US) also thought so, and were glad to see the back of him. Admittedly though, they didn't think much of Pachauri either. Perhaps Bush liked him because he regarded him as an intellectual equal ;-)Regarding your last two links - when I read them I see them as being an indictment of Pachauri, yet you appear to regard them as being mitigating. Perhaps we just look at things differently. Thu 29 Apr 2010 20:50:05 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=98#comment205 @Peter317 #204I am less ready to defend Gore. I think that Gore is a clever politician that knows some science, but doesn't know his limitations when it comes to science. That has resulted in the flaws in An Inconvenient Truth (which have played into sceptic hands, Gore is now a de facto recruiter for AGW sceptics in many UK schools because teachers are legally required to pick serious holes in his film). It has also resulted in the embarrassing gaffe about Earth's geology.Judge orders teachers to pick serious holes in Gore's filmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stmhttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.htmlHowever you are being unfair to CACC over Gore.With regard to CACC and Gore, I don't see them going out of their way to defend him or use his material.Some of CACC's external links include partial qualified defences, but even these are more about clarifying the science than defending Gore outright. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/CACC's forums show enthusiasm for Gore's film before its flaws were exposed in the UK press, but not after.I point out that CACC are UK based and their email alert campaign seems recent (March 2010 date stamp on their web page according to Google). Given the 2007 publicity over the court case, the lack of appeals to Gore by most pro-AGW debaters and the ongoing current criticism of Gore by UK school teachers why would CACC need to tackle his misinformation? Thu 29 Apr 2010 11:23:09 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=98#comment204 @Peter317 #204I have defended people on your side from unfair criticism. Now I defend some on mine.I am not endorsing everything that CACC say. And I repeat, I'm not signed up for their own goal of an email campaign, although I am considering doing so to check my suspicion that their emails mainly rally AGW sceptics. But I can't see anything wrong with their aims.Both sides need to give each other a fair hearing. This is not happening with AGW sceptic comments about CACC.I repeat, Glaciergate was serious. However there are some sceptics that have blown it up out of proportion, as if Glaciergate proved their tin foil hat conspiracy theories about AGW and the IPCC. I remind you that WG1 (science) gets rather more scrutiny than WG2 (impacts), and that the summary gets rather more scrutiny than the full report. I turn the question round. Plenty of you sceptics out there picking holes in the IPCC, why did it take until late 2009 before anyone spotted the error?Personally I am not happy with the "grey literature" situation with the IPCC. Glaciergate was a mistake waiting to happen. Nor am I happy at the slow response to apparent efforts to fix Glaciergate earlier. I hope that whatever happens to the IPCC that we see issues like this tackled.You are also being hard on Pachauri. Pachauri made serious mistakes. But there are important mitigating circumstances.He was chosen by the Bush administration as someone likely to be sympathetic to the Bush administration, this meant he could not be a climate scientist. The "voodoo science" comment was not in a vacuum. Both sides traded insults, and this appears to be the first time that someone reported a serious flaw to Pachauri that turned out to be real. I remind you that to add to the stress this was in the run up to Copenhagen.The Bush administration's involvement in Pachauri's appointmenthttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1940117.stmIPCC accused of being "alarmist" in same row that produced "voodoo science" insulthttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8387737.stmIPCC accused of "doomsday scenarios" in same row that produced "voodoo science" insulthttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/india-pachauri-climate-glaciers Thu 29 Apr 2010 10:27:13 GMT+1 Peter317 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=97#comment203 JaneBasingstoke @200:"Some of their complaints are about obvious exaggerations. The IPCC's "melt by 2035" glacier mistake was serious but it was only in WG2, and then only in the long version. It did not make either version of the summary report. Hardly a central claim."Jane, I never took you for an apologist.It wasn't so much about it's appearance in WG2 - although it's been reported that the IPCC was informed of the error by more than one party before WG2 was published, also that something so wildly implausible should have raised at least a few eyebrows in the scientific community - I couldn't possibly comment.The real damage was done by their reactions when the 'error' came into the open. The Indian researchers who questioned it were publicly accused by Pachauri of being 'arrogant' and of practising 'voodoo science' Even when the IPCC finally acknowledged the error, there was no apology forthcoming from Pachauri - rather he further demonstrated his level of ignorance by saying in a TV interview, "So what if it's 2035 or 2050!"With people like that at the top, what can you expect from the rest of the organisation? I don't doubt that there are genuine, honest scientists and researchers within the IPCC, but they're mostly low down on the food-chain - it's those at the top who call the shots.And then you have people like Gore, who also stated on TV, with a straight face, that, "The Earth's interior, a few kilometres down, is several million degrees".The entire AGW juggernaut is rife with misinformation, so you'll have to excuse me if I take the CACC etc with a liberal sprinkling of salt. Wed 28 Apr 2010 19:37:16 GMT+1 Rob_Cambs http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=97#comment202 @Graves2002 wrote:"Biofuels make perfect sense.The only problem is they can't cope when we suffer from such massive overpopulation. Reduce the human vermin by at least 50% and the world would be a much better place."Interesting comment Graves... You should read the books... 'Cull the population' and 'Introduce mass-sterilisation' and 'enforce draconian birth-control methods'... written by Hugo First...I suspect though you would rather other people suffered for the sake of your unrealistic Utopia ? Wed 28 Apr 2010 12:28:06 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=96#comment201 A few days ago I said that Nick Clegg cannot call himself a liberal. From p.50 of the Liberal Democrats' manifesto (signed by Nick Clegg):"Liberal Democrats will:[...]"Help protect children and young people from developing negativebody images by regulating airbrushing in adverts." Wed 28 Apr 2010 06:56:52 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=96#comment200 #200 JaneBasingstoke wrote:"Showing evidence that someone has reported something wrong or in a potentially misleading manner is not the same as silencing them."Yes, I agree with that. I guess I'm vaguely addressing the idea that "people will no longer trust science in general" if people spread "misinformation" about it, so it should be made more difficult for them to do so. Wed 28 Apr 2010 06:41:54 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=95#comment199 @bowmanthebard #199What part of my post or CACC's website looks like advocating censoring opinion? If there's one thing I approve of in their strategy it is the "show (not tell)" approach to exposing problems with misinformation.If you had looked at CACC's website you would have seen that most of their complaints about misinformation are about wrong facts. Misquotes. Missing caveats. Some of their complaints are about obvious exaggerations. The IPCC's "melt by 2035" glacier mistake was serious but it was only in WG2, and then only in the long version. It did not make either version of the summary report. Hardly a central claim.Then there are the missing caveats. Compare the transcript of the BBC's interview with Joneshttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stmto the Mail's reporting of the same interviewhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.htmldon't you have an issue with the way the Mail reported it?Showing evidence that someone has reported something wrong or in a potentially misleading manner is not the same as silencing them. Tue 27 Apr 2010 23:08:24 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=95#comment198 #196 JaneBasingstoke wrote:"I'm not convinced that misinformation is the best way to get healthy questioning."There is no legitimate authority we can appeal to to decide what is and what isn't misinformation. No opinion can be silenced on the grounds that it is misinformation, because the highest appeal there can be on the truth or falsity of opinions is how well they fare against other opinions in the "open court" of free debate.Thus we can justifiably silence expressions of opinion on the grounds that they present a "clear and present" danger of harm to others, but not on the grounds that they are true or false.JS MIll remains far and away the best thinker on these matters. His three arguments for freedom of expression are each worthy of a book unto itself:1. To silence an opinion on the grounds that it is false is to assume infallibility, which is impossible.2. Even if an opinion is true, is cannot be known or understood unless it is made to confront opposing (and in the present context false) opinions.3. The truth is often in between two extremes, especially in political matters.I think (2) is the most interesting and at first counter-intuitive of these arguments, and it's extremely relevant to the present discussion. I'll illustrate why with reference to David Irving, whom you mentioned a few days ago.Mill would have said that it is vitally important for everyone to know that the Holocaust happened, rather than just to parrot the words of the truth that it did happen. But we cannot know the Holocaust happened or understand it properly unless Holocaust deniers are encouraged -- yes, encouraged -- to argue against the standard opinion (and I would insist that this particular standard opinion is true). Tue 27 Apr 2010 20:04:53 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=94#comment197 #194 JaneBasingstoke wrote:"The fallout is hurting science outside of climate science"This has always been my concern. Not just from this bogus climate 'science' but also from its twin sister, the pseudoscience of Conservation Biology.This has done more harm to the credibility of genuine environmental science, and the genuine issues that need to be addressed, than anything else ever has or could.I have been involved in this since the early 1970s (the biology-ecology side, not the 'climatology')... watching this vital issue being hijacked by Watermelons and others who have created a eco-crisis research-industrial complex to serve their own agendas. Like the military-industrial complex, they sell fear for a living, and invent threats that do not exist. You know about them. The BBC pumps them almost daily.To use the AGW poster child as a classic example, the polar bear population is at all time historic highs while, in order to support the AGW hype, all we see (or should I say saw) in the media are screaming stories about extinction! What are they based on? Why models of course, based on more models based on junk data projected in straight lines into the future. Its absurd. And its positively Orwellian. Tue 27 Apr 2010 19:24:04 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=94#comment196 191. JaneBasingstoke wrote: "But I remind you that there are two levels of raw data, the original data from other institutions and the slightly tidied up CRU version. Letting CRU off the hook over the original raw data from other institutions does not let CRU off the hook over the slightly tidied CRU version of that data."Jane, Jane, Jane. "slightly tidied up" That's a convenient phrase. But it is clear that you have not looked into this very deeply.The whole data set is garbage to begin with because of the way it has been collected. Are you unaware of the extensive analysis of the problems with the sites (UHI) or their reduction in them, which skewed the global results? This has all been detailed on sites like wattsupwiththat and climateaudit. If you delete weather stations from colder areas, and keep the ones impacted by the UHI effect, voila!, you automatically have The Warming. So simple. Madoff material.Then they "tidied up" the data even further!This is widely known, and becoming more widely known by the day. That is the basic reason why this whole issue is dead. All the silly scare stories in the world will not overcome this basic flaw. Its just junk science, and it always has been. Lysenkoism, in support of the multi-trillion dollar carbon trading scam that was supposed to be the Wall Streeters next big jackpot - not to mention its many useful purposes for the One World Watermelon agenda.I hope somedsay that whoever leaked the Climategate emails, which started this serious questioning into all the IPCC tricks, is recognized as the heroes they are.In the meantime, poor Lord Oxborough and his cronies will just have to find another way the shear the sheep. Tue 27 Apr 2010 19:10:14 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=93#comment195 @bowmanthebard #197I'm not convinced that misinformation is the best way to get healthy questioning.Misinformation makes people take up more hard-line positions. They are less ready to give the other side a fair hearing and more ready to accept their side's official line without questioning.All the good stuff that has come out of Climategate looks like stuff that has been delayed by misinformation. Climategate itself looks like it was caused by over-defensiveness against misinformation. (The only long term defence against misinformation is openness and transparency.)And I disagree that the individuals having a hard time are the ones that deserve it. All the climate scientists on both sides are having a hard time thanks to misinformation. Tue 27 Apr 2010 18:33:20 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=93#comment194 #194 JaneBasingstoke wrote:"The fallout is hurting science outside of climate science"The more questioning attitude is doing real science a lot of good, like the expenses scandal is doing politics a lot of good. It's the individuals involved who are having a hard time -- and deservedly so. Tue 27 Apr 2010 15:27:00 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=92#comment193 @Peter317 #180RealClimateHaving tackled some of the IPCC literature I find that RealClimate helps put pro-AGW ideas into plain English. So they're a pro-AGW site? So what. CACCYou may disagree with their methods. You may mistrust their motives.But their stated aim, of reducing misinformation, should help both sides of the debate. They even provide specific examples of misinformation. (Note, some of these complaints about misinformation are about stuff that CACC believes is plain wrong. However others of these complaints about misinformation are about stuff that CACC believes is exaggerated, taken out of context, or has lost important caveats.)(Note, I do not endorse CACC's exact wording of these issues.)http://www.campaigncc.org/scepticsMisinformation is bad for the debate, bad for climate science, bad for the credibility of people on both sides of the debate. The fallout is hurting science outside of climate science - science that is politically controversial but scientifically robust is likely to have to defer more to the authority of Council of Nicea and Genesis Chapter 1.http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527514.100-battle-over-climate-science-spreads-to-us-schoolrooms.htmlMeanwhile scientists on both sides of the divide are on the receiving end of deeply unpleasant criminal behaviour.http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/12/daily-mail-special-investigation/#comment-208792http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/08/9844/#comment-214977Even on these threads there are unnecessary insults and people on both sides not giving the other a fair hearing. CACC's aims of tackling misinformation are not a problem. Their methods may be. Tue 27 Apr 2010 11:51:26 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=92#comment192 @191,jane my post was by no means an attack- if it came across as that i apologise.Yes, i agree, a full, thorough investigation is needed. With input from both sides of the debate.Yes he found significant errors, but, and here's the crucial point, he only checked a cherry-picked, tiny, number of papers that had nothing (or next to nothing) to do with the issues raised.If it was a geniune attempt to review the science/issue then it was a collosal cluster####. But, the way it looks is frankly either1) a whitewash,2) a token 'review' to shut people up because minds are already made up (in which case Lord Oxburgh has my sympathy's).As for the 'guilty until proven innocent' comment. It is highly unfortunate that these people are being harranged- anyone who is being malicious or threatening is, frankly, scum and only demeans themselves. I can thoroughly understand the stress and pressure of the CRU scientists positions.However, the very nature of the issue makes the 'law' comparison of yours, if nothing else, less simple than you'd like.Science is based on proof. Theories that can be tested and work that can be repeated.At the VERY least, the CRU scientists are guilty of poor scientific conduct (FOI,publishing without releaseing/having rights for the DATA etc).Some very extensive, very thorough and totally ignored analysese of the CRU data have been carried out and have shown more that just little errors. 'little' mistakes that can be written off as poor judgement etc.The data i've seen, and i DO try to look at it from both sides (whether you believe that or not is another thing) is incomplete and the logic is flawed. You do not need to be a climate scientist to see that there are errors in the logic.- now this doesn't automatically mean everything they have done is wrong- not at all, but, there are REAL issues with the conclusions, the main theory and more worryingly, the integrity of the raw data itself.Regardless of how this has all come about, the CRU scientists are in a position of having to explain there issues or be seen as 'guilty'. In the normal scientific process this would have happened already, but, as we all know, climate science doesn't quite work that way. This, is perhaps the fallout from that distinction, and as such, i'm afraid they'll just have to live with it.They either show the information/data/methods to prove their stance, or they withdraw their claims. simple as that. It's what'd happen in any other science.As for the governments? A thorough, independant audit is needed. But of course, that'll never happen. Tue 27 Apr 2010 11:47:03 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=91#comment191 Four party debate on climate change in an election campaign meeting...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/for-one-night-only-climate-change-back-on-election-agenda-1955115.html Tue 27 Apr 2010 11:13:33 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=91#comment190 @CanadianRockies #187@LabMunkey #189"spin"Not spin. Public trust of the CRU scientists is very low.Personally I don't believe it is possible to whitewash or spin the situation. The scientists are guilty until openly and transparently proved innocent. This is the opposite situation to normal law.Oxburgh had a pretty minimal remit, and minimal resources. He still managed to establish that there were serious problems with CRU's approach to statistics and that the scientists were disorganised. Oxburgh also flagged up the issue of Intellectual Property Rights. Charging for access to data clashes with the openness of science.And like the parliamentary inquiry before it, which exposed the lack of scrutiny of Jones's work, these are flaws that people on my side of the debate will want to see fixed properly.You may think Oxburgh let CRU off the hook over the FOI requests for raw data.But I remind you that there are two levels of raw data, the original data from other institutions and the slightly tidied up CRU version. Letting CRU off the hook over the original raw data from other institutions does not let CRU off the hook over the slightly tidied CRU version of that data.Personally I am disappointed that the first two inquiries have been so shallow. I repeat, they help your side more than mine. The inquiries expose genuine faults. They are too shallow to let the scientists off the hook even for the wildest tin foil hat conspiracy stuff. And your side interpret their inadequacies as a whitewash. There is double counting of every possible flaw of which the scientists haven't been transparently cleared; people assume both guilt and whitewash.Meanwhile I feel sorry for Oxburgh. His credibility has been damaged by an inquiry that was behind closed doors, had a very limited remit, and was clearly under-resourced. If it had been open, had a bigger remit, and been better resourced people would not be calling foul on his connections or methods. If he had been more aware of the stink of the politics he might have turned the job down."fair"Neither side will get the fairness both sides deserve until there is an open rigorous inquiry. The first was insufficiently rigorous. The second was both closed and insufficiently rigorous. In both instances there was a very limited remit and a lack of resources.In the meantime I remind you that Oxburgh found serious flaws - a statistics heavy science with minimal input from professional statisticians. And nobody on my side of the debate can say "oh he would say that, he's a sceptic". Tue 27 Apr 2010 10:08:01 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=90#comment189 more reading.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/23/new-book-from-dr-roy-spencer/and a 'counter example' for anyone who toes the skeptics=big oil linehttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100036561/pope-catholic-obama-energy-official-profits-from-agw/ Tue 27 Apr 2010 09:42:38 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=90#comment188 @186"And in the absence of more rigorous examination you sceptics are the winners. Because the public is not giving CRU the benefit of the doubt"Jane, the benefit of the doubt is irrelevant. you're generally quite balanced (though on the other side of the fence to myself), but you cannot serisouly be suggesting that the review was:a)impartial or by implication b) it was a thorough and fair investigation.To put the 5 page review into context, i recently had to review a section of work for an audit. One batch, of one product, made over 2 weeks was called into question.The resulting report was over 40 pages long.The CRU has been going for waht now? 10-20 years? (correct if wrong), has released and generated (through its data) 100's of papers.So the review looks at 11 papers (pre-selected and not covering the ones in question) and the final report is 5 pages long....Hell, i'd have failed my degree for putting out a report like that. But it's ok, because it's for the 'good fight'.sigh. Tue 27 Apr 2010 07:55:10 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=89#comment187 #184 davblo wrote:"Calling victims of mental abuse "childlike" is just lacking in understanding."There are degrees of mental abuse. Hostage-victims who are blindfolded and subjected to repeated mock executions are literally and seriously threatened and therefore genuinely harmed.However, much of current culture -- mostly "feminism" gone wrong -- has encouraged the treating of mere insults and even disagreements as "mental abuse", as if being miffed is the same thing as being harmed.It seems to me to be vital that our culture learn to distinguish between someone's being genuinely harmed and someone's being merely miffed. Part of that learning will involve accepting that there are a few people who are genuinely damaged by merely being disagreed with or insulted. I would argue that they are damaged already -- they have been harmed already by someone else or by unfortunate circumstances -- and that the person who "sent them over the edge" was not responsible for harming them."How would you stand up to a bit of serious "brain-washing"?"I'm glad you distinguish between 'serious' brain washing and mere bad manners. The mark of the fanatic is a failure to see degrees of wrongness in action. Tue 27 Apr 2010 07:48:37 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=89#comment186 186. JaneBasingstoke - Good spin. But no. You might want to read that article and discover why your theory doesn't wash. You can only maintain your take on this by ignoring the basic and fundamental flaws with the data and the 'science' behind the AGW project.Its Madoff material. That's why we got that joke of an inquiry and its 5 page report based on cherry picked papers to examine. So sad what the UK has become. Tue 27 Apr 2010 02:02:14 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=88#comment185 @CanadianRockies #185"You might want to go to wattsupwiththat now as they have a detailed article on all Lord Oxborough's investments in the AGW scheme that SHOULD have disqualified him from any participation in that whitewash."Did it ever occur to you that those qualifications perfectly qualify him - for exposing CRU flaws to pro-AGW debaters? Nobody on my side of the debate can say "oh he would say that, he's a sceptic".And in the absence of more rigorous examination you sceptics are the winners. Because the public is not giving CRU the benefit of the doubt. Tue 27 Apr 2010 00:22:30 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=88#comment184 147. ezeezee wrote:"@142 CanadianRockiesYou've been spending to much time alone with those Sarah Palin pictures I think. Fantasising she might save you from your American-lite status.For a Monty Python analogy how about Lord Monckton for The upperclass twit of the year contest? Don't know how you get to AGW adherents being thick. Do you not follow the links on the various posts? Have you ever found one that seriously supports your sceptical viewpoint that is anything more than some lame tittle tattle from some vapid rag like the Telegraph or the Mail?"---------Well, ezeezee, your Pavlovian comment about Palin just demonstrated shallowness and thickness.For more Monty Python, recall the Black Knight insisting he was still up for the fight when all his limbs were chopped off. That's the scientific case for AGW.Or, if you prefer, the parrot.My current preferred choices for information on this topic are the sites wattsupwiththat.com and climateaudit.org, and for the political aspects I check climatedepot.com.In any case, this is dead in the US despite Obama's links to the Chicago Carbon Exchange, and all that.You might want to go to wattsupwiththat now as they have a detailed article on all Lord Oxborough's investments in the AGW scheme that SHOULD have disqualified him from any participation in that whitewash.Sad what the UK has become. Mon 26 Apr 2010 22:50:17 GMT+1 davblo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=87#comment183 bowmanthebard #182: "In that sort of case,[mental abuse] the victim is vulnerable, like a child, and needs special sorts of protection..." Calling victims of mental abuse "childlike" is just lacking in understanding. How would you stand up to a bit of serious "brain-washing"?And that was just one of my examples. You failed to address the others./davblo Mon 26 Apr 2010 21:58:30 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=87#comment182 #180 Peter317 wrote:"all three of the major parties are singing from the same hymn-sheet when it comes to AGW"Succinctly put. Mon 26 Apr 2010 21:05:20 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=87#comment181 #179 davblo wrote:"in the case of mental abuse where it's not just a threat, but the victim suffers real harm."In that sort of case, the victim is vulnerable, like a child, and needs special sorts of protection...But to gag adult conversation because there are child-like (i.e. disturbed and backward) adults around won't work, quite apart from the fact that it is inimical to truth and to thought itself: these people will be victims to other children, and probably to everyone.Some people -- many of whom have the gall to call themselves "feminists" -- think all women are really children like that, and need "special protection" from the rough-and-tumble of male conversation. I refer you to Mill's The Subjection of Women for a good reply to the glorification of infantilization. Mon 26 Apr 2010 21:04:12 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=86#comment180 @bowmanthebard #169"The speaker is responsible for putting linguistic terms together."Never had you down as a fan of political correctness.The European Conservatives and Reformists Group is a very small club. There are only nine parties in it. Clegg referred to controversial characteristics of three, (possibly four) of them. Linguistically he was boxed in by other people's choices.I would also remind you that there is no way that every answer to debate questions could have been scripted. Mon 26 Apr 2010 20:45:06 GMT+1 Peter317 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=86#comment179 davblo @177:"...only when people take it too seriously."And that goes for a whole lot of other things as well.Like, why do some people seem to worry so much over what a few sceptics think?I mean, it's really inconsequential, isn't it? So why do we get all these websites like RC and CACC telling people how best to fight off the sceptics, like they represent some kind of dire threat?Are they afraid people might vote the 'wrong' way? Let's face it - all three of the major parties are singing from the same hymn-sheet when it comes to AGW, so it's not going to make much difference who gets in to No. 10. Mon 26 Apr 2010 20:34:14 GMT+1 davblo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=85#comment178 bowmanthebard #175: Re: "offensive" & "threatening"; "Where do you get the idea that they're the same? They seem obviously different to me."I thought I explained that in the rest of my #173.You want more examples?Being offensive to someone can make them feel threatened. If in public, in some societies it can threaten their "standing" before their peers.Being offensive towards a sensitive person can cause mental anguish. It's easily demonstrated in the case of mental abuse where it's not just a threat, but the victim suffers real harm./davblo Mon 26 Apr 2010 20:24:04 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=85#comment177 @bowmanthebard #172(@davblo)As a minor language issue. You are using "being offensive" in a subtly different way from Joanne Nova.Joanne Nova is explicitly using it in the sense of not having good mannersYour #172 uses it in the sense of the clash of sensibilities that can occur even when people are not being threatening or deliberately rude. If someone has a strong opinion, they may take offence regardless of how inappropriate it might seem to an outsider. That is a valid use of the word, not always clear from some dictionaries. Joanne Nova's comment about "good manners" shows that she does not mean that. Mon 26 Apr 2010 20:23:36 GMT+1 davblo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=84#comment176 Peter317 #176: "Nothing wrong with a game of footie now, is there?" ...only when people take it too seriously./davblo Mon 26 Apr 2010 20:12:46 GMT+1 Peter317 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=84#comment175 Davblo @173:You left out ... 3) relating to the team in possession of the ball or puck in a gameNothing wrong with a game of footie now, is there? Mon 26 Apr 2010 19:57:10 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=83#comment174 davblo #173:"Where do you get the idea that you can be offensive without being threatening?"Where do you get the idea that they're the same? They seem obviously different to me. Mon 26 Apr 2010 19:47:08 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=83#comment173 @bowmanthebard #172Not sure you understood my #166.CACC recommended "going onto the offensive" and using polite explanations.http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384Joanne Nova somehow managed to interpret "going onto the offensive" as "being offensive". She failed to quote or comment on their recommendation for polite explanations. http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/newsflash-the-fightback-campaign-against-sceptics/This isn't just unfair on CACC. It is also unfair on sceptics reading her article who trust her to mix facts and opinions without misleading them. She leaves her audience open to embarrassment when they debate with pro-AGW debaters on the subject. Meanwhile I point out that polite explanations are an essential medium for most of the debate, certainly more effective than being threatening or being excessively rude. Mon 26 Apr 2010 19:41:27 GMT+1 davblo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=82#comment172 bowmanthebard #171: "I have been offensive rather than threatening"bowmanthebard #172: "There is much to be said for being offensive (as opposed to being threatening or otherwise causing actual harm)."Where do you get the idea that you can be offensive without being threatening?------------------Offensive• adjective 1 causing offence. 2 involved or used in active attack. 3 ....• noun a military campaign of attack. — PHRASES be on the offensive be ready to act aggressively.------------------Just as one example, you know full well that there are religious factions which respond violently to verbal or graphic blasphemy.Many lack the distinction between verbal and physical offense; some mistakenly and some perhaps rightly. "Wife-beating" which you mentioned in #162 is not the only form of abuse; mental abuse is well understood and can have serious consequences for the victim; in some such cases physical defence can sometimes be justified.I think you would be wise to revise your attitude./davblo Mon 26 Apr 2010 18:10:09 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=82#comment171 #166 JaneBasingstoke (quoting Joanne Nova):"While they recommend being offensive, I recommend good manners."There is much to be said for being offensive (as opposed to being threatening or otherwise causing actual harm). Usually, we find whatever we morally disagree with "offensive". Since it is a good thing for opposed views to meet, we must welcome offensiveness as a sign the we are meeting views opposed to our own. Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:59:39 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=81#comment170 bowmanthebard #140: "from my own experiences with AGW believers, I'd say most of them are a bit conformist, a bit shallow, and a bit thick"bowmanthebard #162: "We may argue with someone whose creed we disagree with, try to persuade him with reasons, even offend him for holding what we regard as ridiculous beliefs. But it is forbidden to threaten him, or otherwise try to change his creed by coercion."bowmanthebard #162: "anyone who muddies the distinction [between a person's malicious or culpably neglectful intent, and a person's creed] cannot call himself a liberal."davblo #168: "Conclusion? bowmanthebard is not a liberal."Sorry, I don't follow you. How have I muddied the distinction between "malicious or culpably neglectful intent, and creed".I hope it's clearer to you that I have been offensive rather than threatening -- another very important distinction for issues of free speech. I agree with JS Mill that the only grounds for limiting freedom of expression is to prevent harm to others, where "harm" essentially means coercion. Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:55:16 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=81#comment169 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections/#more-18900bit of background readinghttp://climateaudit.org/2010/04/25/yamal-and-the-decline/#more-10830 Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:03:42 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=80#comment168 #167 JaneBasingstoke wrote:"Yes, but who is responsible for putting the terms together? The person that described the club. Or the person that founded the club despite criticism by other Tories."The speaker is responsible for putting linguistic terms together. There are many other terms, I'm sure, that apply to this particular "club", such as words that describe low tax/spend fiscal policies, hostility to the single currency, and so on.I'm not saying Clegg should be arrested or anything, just that he doesn't have the liberal instincts required for a leader of a party whose name contains the word 'liberal', nor the liberal instincts required for a leader of Britain. Mon 26 Apr 2010 15:47:26 GMT+1 davblo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=80#comment167 bowmanthebard #162: "Can you spot the pattern in the following phrases?"You forgot (from bowmanthebard #140)"a bit conformist, a bit shallow, and a bit thick, and believe in AGW"bowmanthebard #162: "Conversely, anyone who muddies the distinction drawn above cannot call himself a liberal."Conclusion? bowmanthebard is not a liberal./davblo Mon 26 Apr 2010 15:36:27 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=79#comment166 @bowmanthebard #162"Putting these terms together has the effect of muddying the distinction between a person's malicious or culpably neglectful intent, and a person's creed."Yes, but who is responsible for putting the terms together? The person that described the club. Or the person that founded the club despite criticism by other Tories. Mon 26 Apr 2010 14:35:06 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=79#comment165 @Barry Woods #151PS, not impressed by the way Joanne Nova took a CACC comment out of context. Going "onto the offensive" is not the same as "being offensive":" One last suggestion from us - you can also consider going onto the offensive and explain that the real uncertainty about man-made climate change is not whether its happening but how fast its happening and that in fact there is increasing evidence that the mainstream science of the IPCC is actually underestimating the scale and imminence of the threat. See our Climate Emergency page and the links at the bottom." CACC"While they recommend being offensive, I recommend good manners." Joanne Novahttp://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/newsflash-the-fightback-campaign-against-sceptics/When it comes to good manners, CACC actually say" We need you to politely explain in the comments section why global warming is actually happening and why it's not a big conspiracy."http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384 Mon 26 Apr 2010 14:31:00 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=78#comment164 OK, to clarify my comments in #160I was not calling David Irving a Nazi.I was calling him tedious. This is a point of view.I was calling him a holocaust denier. This is an established fact.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4733820.stmI was calling attention to the fact that before David Irving, most of the general public were not aware that people could be holocaust deniers without being Nazis. Hence the term "holocaust denier" was rarely used. Mon 26 Apr 2010 14:03:33 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=78#comment163 @bowmanthebard #158He isn't calling AGW sceptics "nutters, anti-Semites, homophobes".Personally I avoid the d-word because it can be misunderstood.But someone describing an individual who said "Global warming is a myth and I think that every serious person and scientist says so." as someone who denies climate change does not seem excessive. Václav Klaus's statement goes far beyond the comments of the more reasonable sceptics.http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1899 Mon 26 Apr 2010 13:55:40 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=77#comment162 @Barry Woods #151"Don't Daily Mail journalists, editors get annoyed about this sort of thing, from fellow journalists, MP's and MEP's especially..."Never been a big fan of the Mail.I'm not signed up to CACC's email alerts, and have no plans to. The whole thing looks like the Guardian's disastrous own goal of a letter writing campaign to American voters during the 2004 presidential elections.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/20/uselections2004.usaWhen I checked the Mail articles in your link they all had zero comments apart from the volcanic ash one where views that looked vaguely CACCish were getting a good kicking from Mail regulars.Perhaps pro-AGW volunteers aren't signing up for CACC's email alerts. Or perhaps the Mail has taken steps. Either way, there seems rather less reason to get paranoid about the CACC email alerts. Mon 26 Apr 2010 13:50:06 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=77#comment161 Can you spot the pattern in the following phrases?Caution: please note that they are all highly offensive, vaguely threatening, and mentioned here strictly in oratio obliqua:"Misogynists, child molesters, and Catholics""Ku-klux-klansmen, Fascists, and agnostics""Extortionists, wife-beaters , and Jews ""Blackmailers, supporters of terrorism, and Protestants""Speeding drivers, thugs, and people who believe the Earth is flat"Each phrase consists of two terms that refer to attitudes of malice or neglect of a sort that society is entitled to use force against to protect itself against, and a third term that simply refers to a person's creed -- i.e. what he believes or doesn't believe.Putting these terms together has the effect of muddying the distinction between a person's malicious or culpably neglectful intent, and a person's creed.Anyone who claims to be a liberal is committed to freedom of thought, so that someone's creed is something that society is not entitled to use force to change. We may argue with someone whose creed we disagree with, try to persuade him with reasons, even offend him for holding what we regard as ridiculous beliefs. But it is forbidden to threaten him, or otherwise try to change his creed by coercion. Conversely, anyone who muddies the distinction drawn above cannot call himself a liberal. Mon 26 Apr 2010 13:46:25 GMT+1 ghostofsichuan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=76#comment160 manysummits:The change comes because as you wander in the mountains you see the changes and negative impacts. The "good" thing is that it is not in some isolated lab or scientific study, it is almost everywhere. People respond and the deniers can say what they may but communities will deal with the issues. Incremental change is the process whereby those in power make adaptations to stay in power. We reach points where the corruption becomes obvious and the politics are in conflict with the people...this is when change occurs. Communities will succeed in spite of governments not because of them. Governments talk about Green Jobs. I am not sure what they are but this reflects the primary concern of governments, taxes. They allow pollution, approve coal power plants, encourage usage of autos and trucks and designate themselves as Green Cities. Words have no meaning in government. Mon 26 Apr 2010 13:31:31 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=76#comment159 This post has been Removed Mon 26 Apr 2010 12:57:51 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=75#comment158 @158.to be fair, denying MAN MADE climate change is hardly the same as the other points, especially if it's based on a scientifical basis (whether your understanding is correct or not, it is still a rational decision, not an irrational 'hatred').That sentence stopped me voting lib dem too. Mon 26 Apr 2010 12:36:59 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=75#comment157 "a bunch of nutters, anti-Semites, people who deny climate change exists, homophobes"I don't want to ban offensive speech or slurs, but this is an offensive slur, and I'll do everything I can -- although it is very little -- to make sure that that spoiled, nasty-minded little toff's party doesn't get into government! Mon 26 Apr 2010 12:25:31 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=75#comment156 @bowmanthebard #154If the comment had been in the middle of a discussion about climate change, or even on its own, I might have agreed with you. But it was in the middle of a discussion about Europe, and Clegg explicitly refers to the European Union.From the BBC transcript:"How on earth does it help anyone in Bristol or anyone else in the country for that matter, David Cameron, to join together in the European Union with a bunch of nutters, anti-Semites, people who deny climate change exists, homophobes. That doesn't help Britain. Of course we need to change the European Union, but you change clubs of which you're a member by getting stuck in, not standing on the side-lines and complaining about things."http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/the_debates/default.stmPerhaps the reason why there has not been a big stink over Clegg's comments is because most of the people watching were familiar with the controversy over Cameron's new "European Conservatives and Reformists" Group. Tory policy on Europe has never been far from UK headlines. Most people following UK politics find Tory policies on Europe of more interest than climate change. Mon 26 Apr 2010 12:09:58 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=74#comment155 Bowman at #154"Even if we charitably interpret him as merely listing attributes of his political opponents..."Aren't they actually attributes that the allies of his political opponents cheerfully assign to themselves (so as distinguish themselves from other political actors)? Mon 26 Apr 2010 12:01:52 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=74#comment154 @41 kamboshighsorry for late reply. That's pure gold. almost too good to be true! Mon 26 Apr 2010 11:53:27 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=73#comment153 #152 JaneBasingstoke wrote:"Clegg was listing significant attributes of parties in Cameron's "European Conservatives and Reformists" Group within the European Parliament."It may have been obvious to someone following the debate very closely, but to those of us who were fighting to stay awake, his "anti-blasphemy" rhetoric suddenly made us sit up and pay attention.Even if we charitably interpret him as merely listing attributes of his political opponents as you say, it is very jarring to hear someone listing merely factual opinions (which might be false) with malicious attitudes (which might not issue in action). He seems not to grasp the difference between "is" and "ought" that informs Hume's philosophy as well as all genuinely liberal political thought.If scepticism and apathy towards AGW is as widespread as you fear (and as I hope) then Clegg may have made a real political gaffe here. I certainly hope so, as he is not entitled to call himself as a genuine "liberal" at all. Mon 26 Apr 2010 11:38:28 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=73#comment152 @Barry Woods #151Meacher is hardly a friend of Gordon's.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6385545.stmMore establishment figures in the AGW debate, all with seats in the Lords:Lord Lawson, former Chancellor of the ExchequerLord BarnettLord DonoughueLord FellowesRt Rev Peter Forster (why are bishops in the Lords)Baroness NicholsonLord Turnbullhttp://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/mps_and_lords/alphabetical_list_of_members.cfmhttp://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/board-of-trustees.html Mon 26 Apr 2010 11:16:25 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=72#comment151 @bowmanthebard #144"The spectacle of Nick Clegg lumping AGW sceptics together with people of genuine malice such as homophobes and antiSemites is very telling."Clegg was listing significant attributes of parties in Cameron's "European Conservatives and Reformists" Group within the European Parliament.Debates, Clegg' comment is in the 2nd debate.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/the_debates/default.stmTory allies in Europehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4665818.stmThe Latvian "For Fatherland and Freedom / Latvian National Independence Movement" (TB/LNNK) are involved in controversial annual parades involving former Latvian members of the Waffen SS.While many members of the Latvian Waffen SS were not involved in the Nazi death squads, some were.http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8571000/8571843.stmThe Polish "Law and Justice" party (PiS) have attracted criticism for homophobia. This includes the allegation that while they banned gay pride marches they gave permission for counter gay demonstrations.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4665818.stmhttp://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw1132674842587B214&singlepage=1http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/09/Oct/0602print.htmThe Czech "Civic Democratic Party" (ODS) have extreme climate sceptic Václav Klaus as their leader. He of the "global warming is a false myth" comment.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/may/01/vacla-klaus-emissions-economyThe inclusion of the Dutch Christian Union Party (ChristenUnie) has also been criticised for their conservative religious ideas. Perhaps you should complain to Cameron about the homophobes and apparent antiSemites that he has chosen to invite into his new grouping. Because it looks to me that the "lumping together" has been done by the membership parties of the "European Conservatives and Reformists" Group itself. Mon 26 Apr 2010 10:24:47 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=72#comment150 Daily Mail and Telegraph heavily targeted again for media maniuplation by organised, man made climate change alarmists:Campaign Against Climate ChangeSceptics Alerts... (todays list just received it)http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384Daily Mail: General Election 2010: Are TV viewers really too stupid to spot the difference ... - Daily Mail: The ash cloud that never was: How volcanic plume over UK was only a twentieth ... - Daily Mail: MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The elementary fault in Labour's quangocracy Daily Mail: General Election 2010: Are TV viewers really too stupid to spot the difference ... Daily Mail: Every night the BBC lectures us on climate change. So why did their bosses ... Christopher Booker: Volcano crisis: Sense vanishes in a puff of ash Christopher Booker: It's a pity we can't vote out our real rulers Christopher Booker: Unforgivable persecution of the Bushmenhttp://www.campaigncc.org/whoweareGeorge Monbiot (Guardian), Michael Meacher (Lab MP), Norman Baker (Lib dem MP), Caroline Lucas (Green Leader, MEP) and Jean Lambert (Green MEP).Don't Daily Mail journalists, editors get annoyed about this sort of thing, from fellow journalists, MP's and MEP's especially...They don't seem bothered by the BBC, maybe because it allready has some resident AGW alarmist guardians in place? (the bbc environment team obviously included) Mon 26 Apr 2010 09:56:12 GMT+1 ezeezee http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=71#comment149 @148 mangochutneyTempting to put a link but that might of be step to far. Mon 26 Apr 2010 09:03:51 GMT+1 ezeezee http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=71#comment148 It would be interesting to know which camp the Monty Python team are indeniers or fryers?It seems to be generally excepted that the world is warming but that the sceptics claim this is just a natural phenomenon. Now if they could just prove this, like the case for CO2 is already, then everybody could see that the situation is more dire than we thought and that we must cut emmissions further and faster. Mon 26 Apr 2010 08:58:28 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=70#comment147 @ezeezee #147For a Monty Python analogy how about Lord Monckton for The upperclass twit of the year contest? LOL!(surprised it got past the mods, but it was funny)Warmist regards/Mango Mon 26 Apr 2010 07:40:52 GMT+1 ezeezee http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=70#comment146 @142 CanadianRockiesYou've been spending to much time alone with those Sarah Palin pictures I think. Fantasising she might save you from your American-lite status.For a Monty Python analogy how about Lord Monckton for The upperclass twit of the year contest? Don't know how you get to AGW adherents being thick. Do you not follow the links on the various posts? Have you ever found one that seriously supports your sceptical viewpoint that is anything more than some lame tittle tattle from some vapid rag like the Telegraph or the Mail? Mon 26 Apr 2010 07:30:34 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=69#comment145 ok, my comment has been referred, so i suggest those interested should go over the WUWT blog to read something interestingWarmist regards/Mango Mon 26 Apr 2010 07:30:13 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=69#comment144 This post has been Removed Mon 26 Apr 2010 07:15:21 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=68#comment143 #142 CanadianRockies wrote:"Every time I hear or read the word 'denier' or 'the debate is over' I'm reminded of those women wearing beards stoning the guy who said 'Jehova'."So am I, and it's no coincidence that that scene was a satirical exposure of attitudes to blasphemy, and of the silly and dangerous laws that are likely to be out in place when a mob decides that merely uttering something or merely having an opinion is "blasphemous".AGW sceptics are people who have a factual opinion that may or may not be true, like agnostics and atheists. The spectacle of Nick Clegg lumping AGW sceptics together with people of genuine malice such as homophobes and antiSemites is very telling. It shows the anti-blasphemy mob mentality has set in. Mon 26 Apr 2010 07:08:48 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=68#comment142 Error: should have read "bend over and think of England."Hip, hip. Cheerio. Mon 26 Apr 2010 06:59:03 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=67#comment141 140. bowmanthebard wrote:"More fundamental objections than the sort of conformist, shallow, and basically unscientific appeals to authority we see again and again from people who use the word 'science' without really thinking about what it means.None of them seem interested in truth or knowledge, let alone dare to ask questions about them. I have to say that from my own experiences with AGW believers, I'd say most of them are a bit conformist, a bit shallow, and a bit thick."Well, ought not to overgeneralize but... I would add the words "defensive" and sometimes "shrill." Many earlier versions were featured in Monty Python's 'Life of Brian.'Every time I hear or read the word 'denier' or 'the debate is over' I'm reminded of those women wearing beards stoning the guy who said 'Jehova'.In the AGW context he just asked a simple question of two.Oh well. Don't hear that 'the debate is over' so much anymore, now that it is so obviously not. Except in UK Whitewashes of course, where they apparently just bend over of think of England.By the way, did anyone notice that the US 'climate' bill is now dead? If you were holding your breath waiting for the announcement tomorrow morning (US time), you can at least take pride on reducing your CO2 output. Mon 26 Apr 2010 06:24:40 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=67#comment140 Bowman at #140Pots, kettles and similar colours. Mon 26 Apr 2010 06:03:30 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=66#comment139 bowmanthebard #132: "I would add that scientifically-minded philosophers -- and philosophically-minded scientists -- tend to have more fundamental objections to (what I think is) the mistaken-ness of it all."davblo #133: "More than what?"More fundamental objections than the sort of conformist, shallow, and basically unscientific appeals to authority we see again and again from people who use the word 'science' without really thinking about what it means.None of them seem interested in truth or knowledge, let alone dare to ask questions about them. I have to say that from my own experiences with AGW believers, I'd say most of them are a bit conformist, a bit shallow, and a bit thick. Sun 25 Apr 2010 22:05:41 GMT+1 LarryKealey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=66#comment138 ...continued (she's taking a shower and we are going to 'town' for dinner - hardly a town, really...Onalaska Texas...;)How do we know what the climate is doing or is going to do? We don't - simple as that. We know (to a limited degree) what it has done in recent geologic history - but only to a very limited degree. What all the interrelated cycles will bring next, no one can say with certainty.It makes me think of a very intersting computer model which was created in the last ten years. It was a model of waves - ocean waves - a tool to study waves on the ocean, in a quest to better understand the 'rogue wave'. Interestingly enough, the model predicted that giant 'rogue waves' were much more common than suspected. The harmonics of several waves would come together and resonate to form a 'giant wave' - which so many thought was physically impossible. The model was confirmed by a new satellite which was able to accurately measure wave heights on the open ocean and showed that the giant 'rogue waves' formed very frequently, but did not last long.They built a good model of a system much simpler than the Earth's Climate and used it the right way - as a tool to learn more. The model showed something 'unprecidented' and they doubted it greatly - but with physical observation, were able to show it was correct. They also realize that while the model predicted the 'rogue wave' phenominon, there is no way to really 'predict' a rogue wave.Why can we not see such rigor and doubt with 'climate science'? Why do so many cast aside all doubts and 'believe' in the remotests of possibilities? Because it 'could happen'? But so many things 'could happen'...Why can this not be 'real science'? Unfortunately, I think I know the answer - money and power - far too much of both involved. As this has such a huge impact on world energy - both power and money are heavily involved. Energy is the single most important commodity on the planet, bar none. Consider the definition of a commodity and then think about energy - the more it costs - the more 'we' all pay and the richer 'they' all get.Makes a skeptic wonder...I bet Exxon-Mobil spends more on promoting climate change than they do on bashing it - by ten to one...[all this hysteria about something we don't really have a good definition for nor can we really measure...hmmm]Cheers.Kealey Sun 25 Apr 2010 21:52:16 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=65#comment137 @bowmanthebard #87 #132You are taking Nick Clegg out of context. He was talking about formal Tory allies within the European Parliament.From the BBC transcript:"How on earth does it help anyone in Bristol or anyone else in the country for that matter, David Cameron, to join together in the European Union with a bunch of nutters, anti-Semites, people who deny climate change exists, homophobes. That doesn't help Britain. Of course we need to change the European Union, but you change clubs of which you're a member by getting stuck in, not standing on the side-lines and complaining about things."http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/the_debates/default.stmClegg is referring to some of Cameron's allies in the "European Conservatives and Reformists" Group within the European Parliament. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4665818.stmThe Latvian "For Fatherland and Freedom / Latvian National Independence Movement" (TB/LNNK) are involved in controversial annual parades involving former Latvian members of the Waffen SS.http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8571000/8571843.stmThe Czech "Civic Democratic Party" (ODS) have extreme climate sceptic Václav Klaus as their leader.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/may/01/vacla-klaus-emissions-economyThe Polish "Law and Justice" party (PiS) have attracted criticism for homophobia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4665818.stm Sun 25 Apr 2010 21:41:18 GMT+1 LarryKealey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=65#comment136 110. At 6:34pm on 24 Apr 2010, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:@manysummits #108The world is warming up, and the evidence is incontrovertible.but still no real evidence to tell us what caused the warming, merely conjectureWarmist regards/Mango------------------------------------Not so fast.In my perception and according to what I read, the world seems to have warmed a bit since my youth, but it also seems that it is now cooling - at least in some places - mine (South Texas) in particular.I would like to see two things:First, a clear and concise definition of the 'temperature of earth' - exactly how we define the that quantity - and then exactly how we measure it - and how those two things have changed just over the last 50 years.Secondly, the 'error band' related to our measurement of the 'temperature of the earth'.Can someone please define for me, in scientific terms, the defination for the 'earth's temperature'???So many seem so sure of their arguments regarding something we don't even really have a good definition for, nor do we have a precise measurement methodology. Well, its beautiful climate here in the Piney Woods of East Texas right now, and we have elected to stay another night at the lake (Livingston). I think the climate is just about perfect right now - of course, it won't last, its always changing (contrary to 'popular' belief).Gotta go round up some catfish...Cheers.Kealey Sun 25 Apr 2010 21:24:17 GMT+1 Dr Brian Skinner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=64#comment135 135. Yorkurbantree wrote"a sleazy sounding, geriatric freemason – that’s what every blog needs."Yorkurbantree. Great. Love it. I've finally provoked the last feminist in the blogosphere.Seriously though (to quote you) the two basic problems with electric cars are 1. The production of emissions at the power station which negates all attempts to reduce CO2 production (if you're really still bothered about producing too much plant food) and 2. Their impracticality except for limited urban use. This is due to the inefficiency of batteries in general. I'd have no problem with some of the money being wasted on AGW mitigation being directed to the development of high-tech, high power, low weight electrical storage devices.I expect you'd prefer to spend it on worshiping Gaia. Sun 25 Apr 2010 20:04:07 GMT+1 Yorkurbantree http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=64#comment134 Simon Swede @31: My sentiments exactly. Jack Hughes @37 & Kambo &38: Comments like this really don’t help dispel the notion that a lot of climate change ‘sceptics’ are led by political ideology... Davblo: Respect for trying to educate dear old Bowman about what sustainability is. While I’m all for a bit of environmental philosophy, I fear that Bowman ably demonstrates the axiom that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Barry Woods: Keep fighting the good fight. You’ll have Richard Black’s job in no time...Larry @72: Interesting definition. I like the positive connotations of that way of looking at things and it’s certainly a legitimate phrase. I fear though that you could twist that definition to support some fairly dubious projects (e.g. a questionable road building program). “Drbrian” – love it! The subtle hint there of a possible phd makes my simple mind more inclined to trust what you are saying...Seriously though, a sleazy sounding, geriatric freemason – that’s what every blog needs. Word to the wise though, going onto an environmental blog to antagonise hippies by banging on about the size of your car engine may not be the best use of your time. Surely you should be too busy running things and (to quote the Simpsons) holding back the development of electric cars... Sun 25 Apr 2010 19:22:55 GMT+1 mrgrump http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=63#comment133 This is a good news story a success for the UN, we have stopped producing ODP's and the quantity of man made CFC's has decreased markedly in the atmosphere.However the expected decrease in the size of the ozone hole above Antartica has not happened it just gets bigger.But the Model Theory is correct? Sun 25 Apr 2010 19:12:30 GMT+1 davblo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=63#comment132 bowmanthebard #132: "I would add that scientifically-minded philosophers -- and philosophically-minded scientists -- tend to have more fundamental objections to (what I think is) the mistaken-ness of it all."Sorry; that reads like a washing powder advertisement.More than what? More than yesterday, maybe?More than non-scientists?More than their mums?/davblo Sun 25 Apr 2010 18:22:01 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=62#comment131 #131 JaneBasingstoke wrote:"Scientists on both sides of the debate agree with the very basic greenhouse effect."Double thanks for saying this. Not only do you remind us that there are sceptical scientists, you also remind us that they're not completely mad (or homophobic and Holocaust-denial-type nutters, as Nick Clegg would say)."Then they debate climate sensitivity."That's true. I would add that scientifically-minded philosophers -- and philosophically-minded scientists -- tend to have more fundamental objections to (what I think is) the mistaken-ness of it all. Sun 25 Apr 2010 17:44:34 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=62#comment130 @manysummits #108"Back to Science"Please no, not again. You've woken poitsplace up.Scientists on both sides of the debate agree with the very basic greenhouse effect. Then they debate climate sensitivity.Poitsplace claims to agree with the very basic greenhouse effect. But I am having problems reconciling poitsplace's version with that of the scientists. In the meantime poitsplace's posts do highlight that someone needs to explain the very basic greenhouse effect properly, in plain language, and then get the scientists on both sides to endorse it. Sun 25 Apr 2010 16:19:45 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=62#comment129 @poitsplace #118(@manysummits)"consistent with the negative feedback from water vapor to any warming"No. It's consistent with the following:1. Negative feedback for lapse rate at tropical latitudes.2. Positive feedback for lapse rate at temperate and polar latitudes.And I remind you that neither of these lapse rate feedbacks seriously affects the global average lapse rate.Also the overall feedback from water vapour (as opposed to water vapour + clouds) is strongly positive, because water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas. This massively outweighs water vapour's contribution to the negative feedback for lapse rate at tropical latitudes.Meanwhile your reference to "energy bypasses radiative transfer through the troposphere" looks like double counting of the effect of convection on the average lapse rate, as the average lapse rate is already part of more sophisticated greenhouse explanations. Sun 25 Apr 2010 16:17:18 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=61#comment128 @MangoChutneyUKOK #57(@blunderbunny)(@ezeezee)(@infinity)(@Richard Black)Mango, any chance that you could actually link to the top of Wattsupwiththat articles rather than the "more" section half way down articles. In this case there has been an important update by Anthony Watts endorsing the evidence that the record high temperature was genuine and down to a rare weather event associated with the geography. (Search for post by "Rai LeCotey (Eureka Station Manager)" for details.) Watts still has outstanding issues with METAR.(Note, there is an eight hour time difference,23 April 4PM Pacific Daylight Time is 23 April 12PM midnight British Summer TimeWatt's update is therefore later than all the discussions about this article of his on this thread.)http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/22/dial-m-for-mangled-wikipedia-and-environment-canada-caught-with-temperature-data-errors/ Sun 25 Apr 2010 15:50:16 GMT+1 Dr Brian Skinner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=61#comment127 127. sensibleoldgrannie wrote"You have my approval providing it is not on the model of, 'Child Workers in England 1780-1820' (by Katrina Honeyman 1970)."Fear not, I'm not advocating child slave labour (although the re-introduction of corporal punishment might do a lot to heal the broken society). There's no reason why manufacturing shouldn't be interesting and rewarding. As a country we can't live on North Sea Oil and services for ever.I can speak authoritatively on the subject of attempting the other in an e-type Jag. If you are ever propositioned it's something to be avoided like the plague. As for running out of petrol the modern woman needs no such weak excuse.I was hoping to provoke the last remaining feminist blogger with the word 'condescend'. There must be one out there in the blogosphere. Sun 25 Apr 2010 15:16:31 GMT+1 sensiblegrannie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=60#comment126 DrBrian,You have my approval providing it is not on the model of, 'Child Workers in England 1780-1820' (by Katrina Honeyman 1970). I have just started studying this book as my own ancestor was sold as an apprentice silk weaver at the age of 14 years old because she was poor and her 'mother' could no longer keep her. With the decline of industry in this country, we have forgotten what 'industry' really meant for the poor.This generation of children will be very hard to convert into becoming manufacturers of goods unless a way is found of making the job interesting, instead of boring; repetitive; restricting; labour intensive with low pay and hazardous working conditions. There is also the issue of the great big fat carbon footprint and there are issues connected with sustainability. Not much you can successfully and profitably produce really unless you can induce countrywide amnesia.At least you are honest as well as amusing, and I especially like the dig about the weather. Watch with the pulling, you don't want to strain your back now do you. Jags don't do many miles to the gallon and the perfect excuse when you run out of petrol. Sun 25 Apr 2010 13:09:23 GMT+1 Dr Brian Skinner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=60#comment125 125. sensibleoldgrannie wrote:"I only wondered why you mentioned money; declining industry; Masons; Jag if you were not attempting some sort of echelon-political stance of someone in the know."Money. It wouldn't matter if the AGW debate was harmless, just a scientific ding-dong about say the death of the dinosaurs or meteors from Mars containing bacteria, interesting but cost-free.The trouble with this sort of scare is that when politicians get involved, usually under media pressure, the "cures" and the costs of the "cures" skyrocket. There are many examples.With AGW in particular the potential cost of mitigation (cure is impossible if the apocalyptic visions are true) are capable of bankrupting the country. Be afraid of the political reaction to scares, not the scares themselves.Declining Industry. Use the money to re-invigorate our manufacturing base. Kindly confirm your approval.Jag. Gets up warmist blogger's noses. In particular my e-type is great and good for pulling. Oh Lord I'm 63!Masons. Last night there was a need to explain why I couldn't keep responding to 'infinity'. It was a pleasant Ladies Night with an intelligent lady who I might condescend to see again. Also the mention of the M word usually gets someone hot under the collar. Mischief is fun.Where's the summer's day we were promised in London? Sun 25 Apr 2010 12:06:14 GMT+1 sensiblegrannie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=59#comment124 DrBrian,It is good to know that your society aims 'at making good men better.' It is good to know that you believe in a higher authority than man. I am glad you honour the Queen as she has made extreme effort to be a good role model. I am glad your organisation respects the law of the land. Forgive me if I didn't understand about the role of the Masonic institution and politics. Do most Masons share your view about 'political pigmies'? Your post at 116 appeared to be quite political and money orientated, and you mentioned the Jag, a symbol of power and prosperity (if you believe the adverts). I only wondered why you mentioned money;declining industry; Masons; Jag if you were not attempting some sort of echelon-political stance of someone in the know. Sun 25 Apr 2010 11:25:21 GMT+1 Dr Brian Skinner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=59#comment123 121. sensibleoldgrannie wrote"DrBrian,I don't know how high up the Masonic food chain you are but I would have thought you would be 'in the loop.'"Gran what on earth do you mean?Freemasonry is a social and charitable organisation for men (there are also many women masons in their own Lodges) aimed at making good men better. We believe in god (each man his own), honour the Queen and respect our laws, although there is no requirement to respect the political pygmies that make it; we just don't talk politics.We have no special knowledge of climate change politics although I have to say that I have never met an AGW believer at a masonic meeting.Perhaps we're all too sensible. Sun 25 Apr 2010 10:29:22 GMT+1 sensiblegrannie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=58#comment122 If I were the only one saying this I could say you have a fair point. This is a reflection of MANY people who I have talked to and heard saying that they would use public transport a lot more if it were more reliable and more economical. I am not of the 'certain age' or 'infirm' that you are suggesting just yet. ;-). I am not wringing my hands, worrying and complaining all of the time and I am not easily intimidated. I do look on the bright side and evidence for this is in post 119;-). Using public transport requires more effort=more work and less relaxation.Do you really believe that personal transport is a better option? Do you really believe that ordinary people should pay over the odds for a system of transport that is not interconnected; is poorly regulated; and for the most part, inefficient? Perhaps we should all take to the roads, as I might do if things don't improve. When we all clog up the system to the point that no traffic can move, perhaps people like you will have a change of attitude as it will start to inconvenience you too. Sun 25 Apr 2010 10:00:06 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=58#comment121 #121 sensibleoldgrannie wrote:"Considering that we live in the year 2010, the dreamed of future, we still have a transport system that is a relic of the last century. It should not cost MORE to use public transport than it does to use personal transportation."Why not? If public transport employs more people than do-it-yourself transport, all of these people have to be paid a fair wage. If public transport involves less work and more relaxation on your part, shouldn't you have to pay for the privilege? And anyway, most Western countries now provide a free bus pass (or similar) for people above a certain age or who suffer from other infirmities , so public transport has come a long way since the last century.Why don't you look on the bright side instead of wringing your hands and worrying and complaining all the time? Sun 25 Apr 2010 08:37:45 GMT+1 sensiblegrannie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=57#comment120 DrBrian,I don't know how high up the Masonic food chain you are but I would have thought you would be 'in the loop.' What mitigation strategies are proposed for the UK in the light of scientific evidence indicating anthropological environmental change? Will our untenable lifestyle behaviours be phased out at a rate that we can cope with or our we supposed to adapt to change overnight? Are integrated transport systems proposed to eliminate the necessity for personal transport to get to work? Considering that we live in the year 2010, the dreamed of future, we still have a transport system that is a relic of the last century. It should not cost MORE to use public transport than it does to use personal transportation. Can governments put pressure on communities with the 'not in my back yard' attitude to allow for more public transport systems to go through their territory? I do not mean air transport. Sun 25 Apr 2010 08:30:06 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=57#comment119 bowmanthebard #80: [Re: 'presume'] "Proof is strictly for mathematics -- in the real world there are all sorts of things we have to take for granted, depending on the context."OK. So we put your definition of Presume into what you said in your #68; and we get...bowmanthebard #68 [with translation of original word 'presume will be' into 'take for granted will be' courtesy davblo]: "If some technological advance leads to fewer cars, it can only lead there by promoting more of other forms of travel, [which I take for granted will be] by air."davblo #117: "That's not very convincing, is it..."It sounds fine to me, apart from being a bit verbose. What do you find wrong with it? Sun 25 Apr 2010 07:49:47 GMT+1 sensiblegrannie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=56#comment118 The rain is falling today and hopefully, will clear the air a bit. There is a nice story on the BBC about women in Africa making their own stoves and making their own version of biofuel using sawdust and waste. I notice that it is the women who are running the enterprise and not the men. A simple measure like this changes and uplifts lives. Sun 25 Apr 2010 07:04:27 GMT+1 lburt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=56#comment117 @manusummits who quoted..."The height of the freezing level in the tropical atmosphere (the free air 0°C isotherm) has increased across most of the region, particularly in the outer Tropics. In the tropical Andes, south of the Equator, high elevation surface temperatures and upper air data show a similar trend in temperature, of ∼0.1°C/decade over the last 50 years..." [abstract excerpt]Yeah, that's consistent with the negative feedback from water vapor to any warming. Water vapor content goes up exponentially with temperature, removing ever-increasing amounts of energy from the surface and sending it up through the atmosphere as latent heat. The higher the temperature, the more energy bypasses radiative transfer through the troposphere (instead moving physically through convection/latent heat).The supposed radiative forcing by water vapor...doesn't work because of this latent heat. Absorbed energy simply stops condensation until a later time...energy from radiative transfer and latent heat is entirely interchangeable. When they parametrize water vapor's absorption in models and factor it into "radiative forcing" they are essentially counting it twice. Most of CO2's spectrum, BTW is also interchangeable with water vapor's latent heat...again reducing its impacts.The maximum forcing from greenhouse gases is physically limited by convection and latent heat. Water vapor and latent heat currently carry the majority of the energy across the troposphere. Their share goes up exponentially at the loss of GHG forcing.================="Let me be blunt:The world is warming up, and the evidence is incontrovertible."Warming yes, but we do not yet understand the impacts of many of the climate's subsystems. It is likely that most of this warming has been natural...partly caused by the ocean currents' moderation of the water cycle. Sun 25 Apr 2010 06:07:33 GMT+1 davblo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=55#comment116 bowmanthebard #80: [Re: 'presume'] "Proof is strictly for mathematics -- in the real world there are all sorts of things we have to take for granted, depending on the context."OK. So we put your definition of Presume into what you said in your #68; and we get...bowmanthebard #68: "If some technological advance leads to fewer cars, it can only lead there by promoting more of other forms of travel, [which I take for granted will be] by air."That's not very convincing, is it... /davblo Sun 25 Apr 2010 00:04:00 GMT+1 Dr Brian Skinner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=55#comment115 111. infinity wrote"So how would you prove your case that there is a threat to the economy if carbon emissions are reduced? I take it that economic models and forecasts of the effects are immature and therefore cannot be used in your proof."Now there's a confusing upside down way of looking at things. The enormous costs of attempted UK mitigation are well known at today's prices.I covered the costs in my 96 unless, of course, you don't think that the money voted. virtually without discussion, couldn't be better used on sustainability and repairing our rustbucket industrial system.A good masonic ladies festival for the Essex women. Plenty of CO2 plant food from my Jag. Sat 24 Apr 2010 22:47:08 GMT+1 infiniti http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=54#comment114 Re 113. Barry Woods"ice age, warm, ice age warm.. littel ice age warm, cool for a bit, etc.."If you want to know what causes climate changes, including how much the sun could have contributed to recent warming, science has advanced on the matter. Pick up the IPCC report. Modern science even has an explaination for recent warming and weighs in on the contribution of the sun too.The mystical majiks of 'natural cycles' is the god-did-it "theory" of climate, along with 'Sun big. me little'. It's simply not scientific. Perhaps it was back in the time of pigs bladders predicting earthquakes, but not anymore. Modern science demands and provides explainations for climate changes that allows us to attribute them, rather than just noting them. Sat 24 Apr 2010 20:50:46 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=54#comment113 On the BBC itself, Fiona Fox: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newswatch (23/04/10)"People like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin, fighting internally to say we DON’T have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate story.”This is the same Richard Black at the BBC, that Michael Mann’s frist thought was to call, when Paul Hudson – wahtever Happened to Global Warming, story appeared on the BBC website.. (month before ‘climategate)1255352444.txtFrom: Michael MannTo: Stephen H SchneiderSubject: Re: BBC U-turn on climateDate: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:00:44 -0400extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job).from what Ican tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?mike————————–So straight from the BBC itself, evidence that the environment team (and the bbc)are acting as gatekeepers for AGW advocates. (the discredited 'hockey stick' team)I doubt if Steve Mcintyre, Lindzen, Spencer, Curry, or any other 'lukewarmer' can just give the BBC’s Richard Black a call Sat 24 Apr 2010 19:55:17 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=53#comment112 nature, 4 billion years of natural climate change.ice age, warm, ice age warm.. littel ice age warm, cool for a bit, etc..no human involvement in the past... (or whatever 'sky fairy' you choose to believe in!)Has all natural 'climate change stopped? for ever! that can drive sea level chnages on 10, 100' of metres, or glaciate the entire UK, or raise the sea level 50 metres so that you can't walk over from France like our ancestors did anymore!Why are you trying to cast a creationists slur at me...If anything did it, check out the big ball of fusion in the sky!!!!As I said before, ask an astro physicist.... infinity, that was a truly ridculous attempt at distraction. Sat 24 Apr 2010 19:53:31 GMT+1 infiniti http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=53#comment111 Re 109. Barry WoodsGod Did It Sat 24 Apr 2010 19:20:03 GMT+1 infiniti http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=52#comment110 Re 107. DrBrian:"Nevertheless when cataclysm is predicted and the costs of mitigating it will beggar the country""it is up to its proposers to prove their case , not the other way round."So how would you prove your case that there is a threat to the economy if carbon emissions are reduced? I take it that economic models and forecasts of the effects are immature and therefore cannot be used in your proof.If you can't prove that reducing carbon emissions will "beggar the country", does that mean your proposed threat is non-existent? Sat 24 Apr 2010 19:19:13 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=52#comment109 @manysummits #108The world is warming up, and the evidence is incontrovertible.but still no real evidence to tell us what caused the warming, merely conjectureWarmist regards/Mango Sat 24 Apr 2010 17:34:17 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/remember_the_unseemly_rush_to.html?page=51#comment108 Let me be blunt:Natural climate change.World warm upWorld cools downWorld warms upWorld cools down.Repeat:Since the end of the little ice age, world has warmed up..Maybe now cooling down again now...Ask an astro physicist Sat 24 Apr 2010 16:29:04 GMT+1