Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html en-gb 30 Mon 21 Apr 2014 16:37:28 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html blunderbunny http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=99#comment149 @QuakeShall we just look at this bit first:"GISTEMP and HadCRUT divergence is known to be down to the different handling of the arctic. If you mask out the arctic in GISTEMP the divergence goes away. In any case both records show warming over the past few decades"Why's that then - Why do the arctic records, differ so much?Helpfully, I know the answer already, but feel free to tell us why this isn't a problem. When you've done with that, you should cover the number of arctic stations that GISS are using, the smoothing/gridding that's being used, the poor data quality, the occaisional missing M's in the METAR hourly station data, the sudden warming of Finland, which came as shock to the Finns, the lovely cherry red of Bolivia, the poor to very poor sighting of many of the stations being used, the very poor (potentially bias) application of adjustments, the re-calibration problem (ooh, look 1934's not that warm anymore), the dodgy application of the urban heat island adjustments .... I could go on, but it's getting a bit late.There isn't a current dataset that hasn't got a problem and it's not as if it's just one problem, it's many. In any other field of scientific endeavor, just trying to use this sort of data without impossibly massive caveats, would likely get you thrown in jail - It's simply not acceptable.Regards,One of the Lobby Mon 11 Oct 2010 22:54:11 GMT+1 quake http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=98#comment148 Re 138. blunderbunnyGISTEMP and HadCRUT divergence is known to be down to the different handling of the arctic. If you mask out the arctic in GISTEMP the divergence goes away. In any case both records show warming over the past few decades, as do the satellites.How does NIWA impact on that result? It doesn't. So why is NIWA such an issue with skeptics? Look closely - do sceptics make it clear that NIWA errors don't impact GISTEMP and HadCRUT? No, in fact they are pushing hard to give the impression it does. Hence the elevation of what is perhaps a minor scandal in New Zealand to be something that must be discussed at Cancun.This is a long sorry story. Hark back to the overblown fuss skeptics made over NASA's 1934 vs 1998 correction and even worse the fuss they made over the error NASA GISTEMP made with the October 2008 update. As much as many of your fellow sceptics try to pretend they are impartial observers, they aren't. They are passionately trying to discredit the science using any trick in the books. Mon 11 Oct 2010 20:36:00 GMT+1 Yorkurbantree http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=98#comment147 LabMunkey @131: Try “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. ConwayLabMunkey @ 92 and 111: To be fair it's not as easy to find as I first thought. The opinion poll can be found if you type: “populas climate change august 2010” into a search engine. There is a link from the somewhat dubiously titled “liberal conspiracy” blog.Given your posting at 111 I take your point, but think this is going to be a case of agreeing to disagree... Mon 11 Oct 2010 20:08:30 GMT+1 Yorkurbantree http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=97#comment146 LarryKealey @117: To paraphrase: “I didn't see any evidence of the events happening in my neck of the woods..so therefore the whole thing was made up”. Guess that's a case of “think local, ignore global”bowmanthebard @118:Regarding the lack of evidence of physicists being sceptical of climate change. I would have thought a more rational explanation would be that the vast majority simply don't share you views. Just a thought...Jack Hughes @136:“Is there noone with any integrity to lead or speak for the "green" movement?”How about Caroline Lucas, Peter Madden, Jonathan Poritt and David Attenborough for starters Mon 11 Oct 2010 20:05:52 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=96#comment145 #140. bowmanthebard wrote:@ Paul Butler #132:I say by all means let us look around as much as possible, in the hope that something will occur to us that explains what we see -- and anything useful is bound to draw heavily on our imaginative resources. Our theories are tested by data, not based on data. To be tested by them, our "data" have to be more trustworthy than the theories they rule in or out.OK bowman I know you have strong views on this, and I'm not sure I'll be able to keep this end of the argument going if you choose to disagree. But surely initial hypotheses are based on observations. Then obviously we refute, confirm or adapt them on the basis of more controlled observation. Are you going to tell me I'm wrong?AGW-theory seems to rely heavily on extrapolation (from properties of members of a sub-class to all members of the entire class). Logicians call that "enumerative induction", and although it is fine in some circumstances, it sure as hell is not fine in these AGW-theory circumstances!I'm not sure what you mean by this in relation to AGW theory (perhaps you can give me an example).But you sure as hell see a lot of it on these threads! Mon 11 Oct 2010 19:59:19 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=96#comment144 #143. jackcowper wrote:Paul Butler @ 110Hello PaulPiers Corbyn's Weather Action has been independently verified:Early Weather Action (Solar Weather Technique) skill was independently verified in a peer-reviewed paper by Dr Dennis Wheeler, University of Sunderland, in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol 63 (2001) p29-34. Thanks - that looks quite interesting and, strangely enough, I actually know Dennis Wheeler. Hopefully I can access that paper from work, otherwise I might ask the man himself! I'll try to get back to you on this thread. Mon 11 Oct 2010 19:44:54 GMT+1 jackcowper http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=95#comment143 Wolfiewoods @31Do you still believe that sceptics should be subject to state sponsored re-education? What a shockingly stupid thing to say.... What a great example to us all greenpa is with his low level insults and sound-bites, try thinking for yourself.Just because some of us do not agree with CAGW does not mean we are not green so to speak. On a personal level I cycle to work (12 miles a day), I grow a lot of my own food - recently I spent an evening making a Charlie & Lola tree that my children put the leaves on every time we recycle something - maybe you have seen the episode on CBeebies.I strongly suggest you have a good think before type in future. Mon 11 Oct 2010 19:41:02 GMT+1 jackcowper http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=94#comment142 Paul Butler @ 110Hello PaulPiers Corbyn's Weather Action has been independently verified:Early Weather Action (Solar Weather Technique) skill was independently verified in a peer-reviewed paper by Dr Dennis Wheeler, University of Sunderland, in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol 63 (2001) p29-34. I would like to see the full version of this myself but if you google it - you can see the abstract - the rest of it is behind a pay wall unfortunately.And his America forecasts have been verified by Weather Net, unfortunately this is shown in a PDF but you can find the document yourself here: http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact5&fsize=0For the record my wife believes he's no better than a gypsy fortune teller - I believe he has discovered something and look forward to the day when he gives full disclosure of his technique. Mon 11 Oct 2010 19:27:30 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=94#comment141 @quake #135Surely the Cancun conference is a discussion of politics and economics based on the last snapshot of the published scientific literature.So the US Republican party repudiating global warming is something that will affect Cancun?/Mango Mon 11 Oct 2010 19:03:27 GMT+1 Peter317 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=93#comment140 @ghostofsichuan #127:"Lead in gasoline, poisoning people, and the deadly smog."Perhaps you should read up on "catalytic converters" Mon 11 Oct 2010 19:01:06 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=92#comment139 @ Paul Butler #132:We differ over the role of "data" in science. AGW-theorists seem to assume that theory is "based on data", and in an attempt to get some "data" to "base" their theory on, they are prepared to throw observation to the winds and cobble together something that they think fits the bill as a "foundation". But even Descartes, foundationalist extraordinaire, knew that a foundation had to be less uncertain that the edifice it was supposed to support. Proxy "data" are like the lowest segment of a compound pendulum, or the last ball in a "cannon shot" in a game of pool -- dodgy, chaotic, and untrustworthy.In opposition to that sort of foundationalism, I say something quite different.I say by all means let us look around as much as possible, in the hope that something will occur to us that explains what we see -- and anything useful is bound to draw heavily on our imaginative resources. Our theories are tested by data, not based on data. To be tested by them, our "data" have to be more trustworthy than the theories they rule in or out.Another difference between us -- actually it's so closely allied to the above idea it hardly counts as "another" difference -- has to do with the sorts of inference used in science. AGW-theory seems to rely heavily on extrapolation (from properties of members of a sub-class to all members of the entire class). Logicians call that "enumerative induction", and although it is fine in some circumstances, it sure as hell is not fine in these AGW-theory circumstances! Mon 11 Oct 2010 18:53:43 GMT+1 Peter317 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=92#comment138 @Paul Butler #73:OK perhaps I asked for that a bit. However, I'd have been more interested in Hal Lewis' views if he'd chosen to tell us in his resignation letter the basis of his scientific (especially from the physics point of view) objections to AGW theory.Perhaps he considered that to be self-evident within his circles. Mon 11 Oct 2010 18:42:28 GMT+1 blunderbunny http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=91#comment137 @jr4412 #128"'niwa court' eh? sigh.. {bows head to superior search skill}"No problem.... very happy to help... Now if I could just help you with your stance on the whole AGW thing, we'd really be making progress ;-)@The WarmistsAs far as most of us sceptics are concerned the modern temperature record is in serious trouble, even without the variously admitted and in some cases corrected quality errors, you've got stuff like this (NIWA), you've got the GISTEMP Divergence from HADCRUT, you've got the results from the Argo bouys, the list just goes on and on and onAs it stands, I don't think that you guys can even convincingly claim that the planet has warmed at all, let alone dramatically warmed. Datawise you're up the proverbial creek..... But still the arguments and name calling continue... I guess, the world would be a dull place if we all agreed, but I am starting to get fed up with it all, don't you think it's time to start re-considering your positions?Regards,One of the Lobby Mon 11 Oct 2010 18:25:53 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=90#comment136 I think you may be burying your head in the sand, quake/Mango Mon 11 Oct 2010 18:15:56 GMT+1 Jack Hughes http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=90#comment135 @Yorkurbantree"If we wrote of every concept and movement which had hypocritical supporters, then we would be quickly left with virtually nothing. "Is there noone with any integrity to lead or speak for the "green" movement?The leaders and spokesmen are all either hypocrites, have conflicts of interest - or both.Yes I'm looking at Al Gore, Raj Pachauri and now at Franny "frequest flyer" Armstrong. Mon 11 Oct 2010 17:37:17 GMT+1 quake http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=89#comment134 Surely the Cancun conference is a discussion of politics and economics based on the last snapshot of the published scientific literature. NIWA and Hal Lewis aren't part of that snapshot, so won't be discussed. It doesn't even seem to me that they are worth discussing*The last snapshot of the published literature was probably AR4. Politicians are going to be drawing from that kind of thing, not reviewing the science to date or what's happening on the blogosphere. *NIWA: If the Cancun conference (or any conference) goes into scientific depth about surface temperature records they are going to reach for the last snapshot of GISTEMP and HadCRUT. Why would they ever discuss NIWA?*Hal Lewis: Complete non-issue. Mon 11 Oct 2010 17:24:02 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=88#comment133 For those who don't know who Hal Lewis is:Harold Lewis (Hal Lewis) is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II;http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/Still don't think all the recent events could impact Cancun?/Mango Mon 11 Oct 2010 17:23:30 GMT+1 blunderbunny http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=88#comment132 @MangoSorry Mate, I was merely pointing out that it wasn't hard to find. As I understand it the court case hasn't come to an end yet. You can find both the defense's and the plaintiff's submissions in pdf format hanging off links on Jo Nova's blog. Latest interest in the case seems to be based on the defenses submission, though it's not exactly easy to read in the format that it's presented in - Some stuff admitted, some stuff denied, read them yourself and make you're own mind up.Regards,One of the Lobby Mon 11 Oct 2010 17:05:06 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=87#comment131 #126. bowmanthebard wrote:Paul Butler #125 wrote:Large chunks of AGW theory are based on the radiative physics of gases. As far as I am aware, no legitimate critic of AGW theory means to find fault with that sort of thing. It's all the other stuff -- the attempt to "read the tea leaves" of the past climate "record" (which isn't really a record at all but a set of highly theoretical posits) to divine future climate, the attempt to describe exactly the sort of disasters and catastrophic events that follow if we do not heed the portents...OK bowman. No doubt this is where we (and probably Hal Lewis as well will have to agree to differ.(Sorry everybody, long post follows!)However, it isn't correct to say that the past climate record isn't a record at all. In fact a proxy archive like a tree or an ice core is precisely that. The difficulty lies in our interpretation of its message. In principle we can interpret it, however, by combining multiple proxies with a robust model of the system. Now a lot of people, probably yourself included, will say that the proxies are laden with uncertainty and the models are laden with parameterizations, so they end up producing the result we expected to get in the first place.Its not as simple as that, through, since the models and the results they produce have in the end to be consistent both with observed data and with the most well informed interpretation of the proxy data. This is work in progress and, just as it tooks decades to harmonize meteorological models so that they give reliable forecasts more than a few days in advance (and yes we do only tend to remember the times they get it wrong!), so the vastly more complicated climate models will improve with time. And as we come to understand how the system works, so will our ability to, as you put it "read the tea leaves"The other issue of course is "the attempt to describe exactly the sort of disasters and catastrophic events that follow if we do not heed the portents."Well, we know that big climate shifts occurred during the ice age cycles, sometimes during very short periods of time. We know that some element of amplifying feedback involving greenhouse gases is required to explain these shifts. But we don't really know what happens when greenhouse gases build up during the warm part of the cycle, since that hasn't happened recently enough for us to get any kind of detailed picture of the processes involved.So we're left asking the question "Do we feel lucky?". And the issue becomes a political one, engaging our views of the precautionary principle, the role of the state in forward planning, and whether there are other positives to decarbonization.Meanwhile the science, albeit hedged with uncertainty and gaps, supports those who argue that the possibility of something catastrophic happening is sufficiently high that we need to incorporate it in our forward planning right now. Note, though, it specifically doesn't say that something catastrophic will inevitably happenSo its in order to constrain that possibility that, in my view, further research into past climates and further strengthening of the climate models is fully justified. Mon 11 Oct 2010 17:02:17 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=86#comment130 @127.all interesting titbits (and i probably wouldn't argue a few of them); but i was asking for direct proof of biog oil having political clout over cAGW. Not past events.Try agian.NOte however i'm not saying it's not possible, i just require proof before i 'believe' what you say. Mon 11 Oct 2010 16:57:42 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=86#comment129 @blunderbunny #115The NIWA story you pointed too is dated August 16th. The story hasn't been updated to show NIWA have now disowned the NZ temperature record, so there is no longer an official NZ temperature recordThis story plus the other stories i have pointed to, including my #129, could have a really big impact on the Cancun conference/Mango Mon 11 Oct 2010 16:46:49 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=85#comment128 RichardNow that the US Republican party looks to be dismissing AGW as false, do you think this will affect negotiations at Cancun?It will be difficult for the world to move meaningfully against climate disruption if the United States does not. And it will be almost impossible for the U.S. to act if one party not only rejects the most common solution proposed for the problem (cap-and-trade) but repudiates even the idea that there is a problem to be solved.http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20101009_9888.php/Mango Mon 11 Oct 2010 16:34:57 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=84#comment127 blunderbunny #115.'niwa court' eh? sigh..{bows head to superior search skill} Mon 11 Oct 2010 16:32:48 GMT+1 ghostofsichuan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=84#comment126 105 LabmonkeyWhere should one start. Lead in gasoline, poisoning people, and the deadly smog. Coal dust and such in water systems....chemicals in the air, lack of enforcement of existing environmental regulations, working conditions in coal mines and the occasional tanker or platform oil spills because of lack of safety enforcement. There is a long list but wouldn't want to tire your brain with facts that counter your beliefs. Mon 11 Oct 2010 16:16:59 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=83#comment125 Paul Butler #125 wrote:Large chunks of AGW theory are based on the radiative physics of gases. If Hal Lewis, or any physicist has an alternate view to the AGW interpretation, I'd be interested to see it.As far as I am aware, no legitimate critic of AGW theory means to find fault with that sort of thing. It's all the other stuff -- the attempt to "read the tea leaves" of the past climate "record" (which isn't really a record at all but a set of highly theoretical posits) to divine future climate, the attempt to describe exactly the sort of disasters and catastrophic events that follow if we do not heed the portents...Analogously, no decent critic of astrology says it has got the number of planets wrong, or their positions wrong. I'm sure that's mostly perfectly legitimate astronomy. It's the other stuff -- the divinations on such a silly basis, and the attempt to hitch their wonky wagon to the bright star of decent science! Mon 11 Oct 2010 16:13:27 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=82#comment124 #118. bowmanthebard wrote:I imagine that quite a lot of physicists are repulsed by the political machinations of AGW theory, but few of them write about politics or are even capable of saying exactly why hiding "data" is so different from petty academic departmental politicsBowman I don't want them to write about politics! Large chunks of AGW theory are based on the radiative physics of gases. If Hal Lewis, or any physicist has an alternate view to the AGW interpretation, I'd be interested to see it."But even if he were merely asserting his belief without reasons, that is not quite the same as "begging the question", which sneakily assumes the very thing it purports to demonstrate."Perhaps you're technically correct there. But only because he doesn't actually 'demonstrate' anything! Mon 11 Oct 2010 15:06:28 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=82#comment123 #113. LabMunkey wrote:Incidentally paul, i am not offering this as evidence that EITHER side is right, only as a counterpoint to the repeated claims of 'big oil funding' distorting the debate. Money has nothing to do with who's right or wrong. That is my only motivation behind this line of discussion.Fair enough. This is an issue that will tend to be seen through our preconceptions. So I trust the AGW science and I'm more likely to see some of the hand of big oil in this debate. For one thing its happened before (the LA mass transit system, cigarettes, the electric car etc etc). For another, they have a legal duty to their shareholders to maximise profits. But of course I'm aware that Greenpeace (which is not a commercial organization) and other organizations propagandize on the AGW side. The difference from my point of view, is that they have the science on their side.In fact this statement in your post:"When i am reffering to the 'pro cagw' side funding i am ONLY reffering to funding that is specifically targeted at finding links between co2 and temperature"may limit you too much! Remember funding devoted to climate science is targeted at modeling/explaining the climate in a consistent way. It aims to find the links between all climate drivers (including greenhouse gases) and, well, temperature of course, but other things as well (precipitation, sea level etc etc).Since the AGW model is the currently accepted model, any climate funding will tend to be based around that model, but if another model emerges from the research which explains everything without greenhouse gases, it'll emerge as a result of that same funding stream. Mon 11 Oct 2010 15:00:51 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=81#comment122 # 114 LarryKealey wrote:#110 Paul Butler wrote:Where is the independently audited data that tells me that weatheractions predictions (whether of the weather or the longer term climate) are indeed more accurate than those of "the met offices of the world"?----------------------------------------------------------------------Where is the 'independently audited data' from 'the met offices of the world"? It would seem that every time there is an audit there is a scandal...Larry, my point is that national met office predictions are available before the event so anybody is free to assess how good or bad they are and produce statistics based on defined criteria.On the other hand weatheraction is a commercial organization whose predictions have to be purchased. I don't know what their subscription is, but I imagine its of the order of thousands per year (although I stand to be corrected on that) - just like a certain racing tipster I once had a somewhat unsuccessful financial arrangement with.So purlease you weatheraction supporters ... just tell me how you know that Piers Corbyn is the greatest weather forecaster since Noah built the Ark. Then I'll shut up, promise Mon 11 Oct 2010 14:45:47 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=80#comment121 Paul Butler #111 wrote:if I do let you include that research, I'd also want to include all the R&D spent on finding new sources of fossil fuels on the 'anti-AGW' side of the balance sheet.So its never obvious to me unless the person saying it is specific about what they are including. Only then can we even start the discussionThe amount of money behind either side is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the science. The US government spent a lot of money developing the atom bomb, but that didn't make it any less of a bomb! More money can mean better equipment and better people as well as more corruption.The question of the legitimacy of the science has to be answered independently of political considerations. Whether the science turns out to be good, or lousy, the money issue can only really play a part in explaining the political goings-on that made it good or lousy. Mon 11 Oct 2010 14:41:09 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=80#comment120 @ 119yes and of course, all this is with the qualifier that it turns out how it appears to be on first pass.They MAY have valid reasons for inserting an arbitrary adjustment factor to put a warming trend where none was suggested in the raw data. We'll just have to wait and see. Mon 11 Oct 2010 14:39:34 GMT+1 LarryKealey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=79#comment119 @Richard,Now, I do remember hearing something about this thing - on your blog a week or so ago...LOLCheers.Kealey Mon 11 Oct 2010 14:32:46 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=78#comment118 LabMunkey #109 wrote:My prediction is that the story will 'break' on the msm (on buried pages on websites and mentioned only in passing, if at all on the news) after everyones got back from china and it'll be 'lost' in the 'post match interviews' and 'they' will attmpet to hastily bury it prior to mexico.As long as it's genuinely the story it appears to be so far, it cannot be successfully buried. It rings too many bells in the public imagination. It's really just a matter of which mainstream media source "breaks ranks" first. Mon 11 Oct 2010 14:30:17 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=78#comment117 Paul Butler #108 wrote:Surely Lewis is begging the question here, assuming that AGW is not legitimate science without providing any reason why he thinks that way.He does say that money is the principal driving force behind AGW theory, that it is politically corrupt in various ways, and that its claim that its own evidence is to be "incontrovertible" are all inconsistent with genuine science such as physics.Put it this way: I think it is legitimate science (and there are umpteen justifications of this, so even if I turn out to be wrong I have reasons for thinking that, I don't just assume it). Then Lewis says "I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion". But I'm not aware of any papers that indicate that any physicist thinks like that.Most physicists spend their time writing papers within physics, rather than writing papers about scientific methodology. In fact it's noteworthy that few practitioners of any activity are much good at giving a reliable account of what it is they do so well. They're good at doing something, but bad at describing how they do it, which is of course a different thing, requiring reflection on a different level. For example, children play with gyroscopes (and so do I) but they cannot give a mathematical account of gyroscopic motion; unicyclists have good balance, but few could explain the workings of the semicircular canals of the inner ear; people with good eyesight have no special talent in optics. And so on. I imagine that quite a lot of physicists are repulsed by the political machinations of AGW theory, but few of them write about politics or are even capable of saying exactly why hiding "data" is so different from petty academic departmental politics. I would guess nearly all of them are also repulsed by the fact that AGW's methods resemble those of psychology more than traditional physics (including statistical mechanics, whose methods, though "statistical" in one sense, are entirely different from the inductive extrapolation -- essentially, psephology -- of AGW theory).All I see is Lewis' statement of his "belief" and no reasons for it. It's his scientific reasons for that belief I asked to see and that he chose not to provide.It can be summed up in the two words 'political corruption'. But even if he were merely asserting his belief without reasons, that is not quite the same as "begging the question", which sneakily assumes the very thing it purports to demonstrate. Mon 11 Oct 2010 14:25:54 GMT+1 LarryKealey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=77#comment116 Richard writes:This Sunday - 10/10/10, if you care to write dates that way - is set for what's probably the biggest mass event ever in pursuit of curbing climate change.At the heart of things is 350.org, which is calling the event a "global work party": "It’s been a tough year: in North America, oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico; in Asia some of the highest temperatures ever recorded; in the Arctic, the fastest melting of sea ice ever seen; in Latin America, record rainfalls washing away whole mountainsides. "So we’re having a party."At the time of writing, there are 7,014 events registered in 188 countries. --------------------------------------------------------------------Interesting, I didn't hear anything about this until I got on the computer this morning and came to Richard's Blog. "The biggest mass event ever"...wow - and it passed by the forth largest city in America...While I (unfortunately) have not been on the computer much for a while, I am a news junkie - not a word about any of these events on local nor national news...I think we can say this puppy is dead..."At the time of writing, there are 7,014 events registered in 188 countries."Richard, can you tell me what constitutes an 'event' - does a couple of blokes gripping about it in a pub over a beer count???Dying to know...Cheers.Kealey Mon 11 Oct 2010 14:23:34 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=76#comment115 @ 112.i'm past being suprised in this 'debate' to be honest mate. Anythings possible!!Though as far as i can see the case is fairly solid. If true, it's very worrying and a very sad day for science. Mon 11 Oct 2010 14:23:05 GMT+1 blunderbunny http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=76#comment114 @ManySeems to me that people aren't looking very hard, just searched for "NIWA court":http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/niwa-court-action-reheats-climate-change-debate-3706453I don't think that there's been a judgement yet, but as I understand it NIWA have admitted to making the adjustments using “internationally accepted” methods and the case, as they say, continues.......Regards,One of the Lobby Mon 11 Oct 2010 14:21:47 GMT+1 LarryKealey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=75#comment113 #110 Paul Butler wrote:Where is the independently audited data that tells me that weatheractions predictions (whether of the weather or the longer term climate) are indeed more accurate than those of "the met offices of the world"?----------------------------------------------------------------------Where is the 'independently audited data' from 'the met offices of the world"? It would seem that every time there is an audit there is a scandal...Mango, are you sure correlation does not imply causation? LOL-Kealey Mon 11 Oct 2010 14:19:37 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=74#comment112 @ 111Fair enough.When talking about the money involved i am not intending to include the money put towards renewables, although i find the rapid implementation and general #### poor thought processess around rushing it all through detestable, regardless of those reasons i think renewable research etc is perfectly valid, reasonable and something to be encouraged.When i am reffering to the 'pro cagw' side funding i am ONLY reffering to funding that is specifically targeted at finding links between co2 and temperature. So, that would include the cru, and all it's international bretheren. It would also include the political bodies such as the IPCC and all the think tanks/quango's set up by the IPCC/governments to support, promote and push this position.SO this would include all the money sank into advertising, the money spent on the various conferences (copenhagen, china, cancun).I would also include all the third part organisations, be it directly funded (10:10) or not (greenpeace) who have pushed this agenda (though i must stess that i only include greenpeace example due to its threat and that i wouldn't for a second advocate including organisations that only have cAGW as part of their overall mandate- greenpeace does do other, independant work on a variety of subjects).I would then include governmental, european and US grants that have been awarded to universities, research organisations and individuals to further pursue this agenda.Next, i'd include all the false news pushed out by the MSM on a regular basis - not as a direct monetary value, but perhaps as a counter to the 'big oil' advertisiements you may see at your local train station.Is that specific enough? or should i pick a specific example and try dig up some figures for you? (by no means meant to be confrontational/aggressive, i want you to see where i'm coming from).Incidentally paul, i am not offering this as evidence that EITHER side is right, only as a counterpoint to the repeated claims of 'big oil funding' distorting the debate. Money has nothing to do with who's right or wrong. That is my only motivation behind this line of discussion. Mon 11 Oct 2010 14:19:36 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=74#comment111 LabMunkey #109."My prediction is.."either that or it may turn out to have been a skillfully planted rumour (designed to gauge the 'strength of feeling' re IPCC, credibility, etc?) anyway, one to watch. ;-) Mon 11 Oct 2010 14:13:22 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=73#comment110 #92 LabMunkey wrote:@82 and paul butler.Apologies, again i've made the mistake of assuming people knew what i did (i.e. that it was obvious!).I am referring mostly, to the governmental grants, aid and support given to the various research institutes/campaigns/drives that in terms of money allocated, move into terms such as percentage of gdp, rather than the millions the oil companies 'could' muster. Also, there are the private/buisness investments in the field that alone probably match the 'oil lobby'.No its still a bit vague, and I'll tell you why. Obviously you want to throw everything you can into the alleged 'pro-AGW' side to strengthen your case. But research into renewables, for example, may have as much to do with security of energy supply as it does with emissions reductions. And if I do let you include that research, I'd also want to include all the R&D spent on finding new sources of fossil fuels on the 'anti-AGW' side of the balance sheet.So its never obvious to me unless the person saying it is specific about what they are including. Only then can we even start the discussion Mon 11 Oct 2010 13:54:18 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=72#comment109 #96. John_from_Hendon wrote:I have to take issue with your statement. There are people who specialise in long term weather forecasting based upon sun-spot data. These people (see Weatheraction and read the related papers) achieve considerably more accuracy in forecasting than the met offices of the World. John, I've been asking this for a while now from people who like Piers Corbyn and his weatheraction site. Perhaps you can help me out.Where is the independently audited data that tells me that weatheractions predictions (whether of the weather or the longer term climate) are indeed more accurate than those of "the met offices of the world"?You see, at the moment, nobody's been able to convince me that the numbers relating to his predictions don't come straight from his own website, making him rather like one of those dodgy racing tipsters who hook you to their system in with stories of their winners .... all after the event of course Mon 11 Oct 2010 13:42:01 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=72#comment108 106;isn't it just.My prediction is that the story will 'break' on the msm (on buried pages on websites and mentioned only in passing, if at all on the news) after everyones got back from china and it'll be 'lost' in the 'post match interviews' and 'they' will attmpet to hastily bury it prior to mexico.Which is odd, considering that it seems to show willfull and deliberate manipulation of scientific data to show something that wasn't there specifically for it to be included in the IPCC report.... Mon 11 Oct 2010 13:41:57 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=71#comment107 #91. bowmanthebard wrote:Paul Butler #73 wrote:I'd have been more interested in Hal Lewis' views if he'd chosen to tell us in his resignation letter the basis of his scientific (especially from the physics point of view) objections to AGW theory.Then bowman said ...This "begs the question" (in the proper logical sense of the phrase) by assuming that AGW theory is legitimate science. But Lewis's resignation letter makes it clear that he does not regard it as a legitimate science at all:"I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist."Surely Lewis is begging the question here, assuming that AGW is not legitimate science without providing any reason why he thinks that way.Put it this way: I think it is legitimate science (and there are umpteen justifications of this, so even if I turn out to be wrong I have reasons for thinking that, I don't just assume it). Then Lewis says "I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion". But I'm not aware of any papers that indicate that any physicist thinks like that. All I see is Lewis' statement of his "belief" and no reasons for it. It's his scientific reasons for that belief I asked to see and that he chose not to provide. Mon 11 Oct 2010 13:34:14 GMT+1 Brunnen_G http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=70#comment106 Further to my request @101Any news sites at all? Mon 11 Oct 2010 13:33:06 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=70#comment105 Brunnen_G #101.(LabMunkey)(MangoChutneyUKOK)"Can someone post a link to a news site (not a blog) covering the 'kiwigate' scandal?"spent nearly an hour googling and found absolutely nothing, not even in the NZ and German media, intriguing. Mon 11 Oct 2010 13:21:10 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=69#comment104 @104" The reality is that big oil and coal have a great deal of influence in government and corrupt the policies that might do some good at the expense of shareholder profits"evidence please or kindly stop spouting this nonesense. Mon 11 Oct 2010 13:06:02 GMT+1 ghostofsichuan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=68#comment103 This is actually how change takes place. People don't need the permission of government to make things a priority that the governments do not. Nothing frightens politicians more than people doing things on their own. The reality is that big oil and coal have a great deal of influence in government and corrupt the policies that might do some good at the expense of shareholder profits. The politicians will only jump out front when it is safe for them to do so...it is the class of cowards and the corrupt. This will be like all change, the people will do it first, overcoming the barriers created by the governments. The political will rewrite their histories and say "just because I voted no, doesn't mean I was against it", and have a newspaper article written about a solar panel being installed at their homes. Mon 11 Oct 2010 12:47:15 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=68#comment102 dellingpole has picked up the Hal Lewis story:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/and has mentioned the NIWA nonsense:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058109/no-pressure-monckton-watts-delingpole-presley-bin-laden-join-1010-campaign/The question is, will Cancun be affected by the NIWA revelations?/Mango Mon 11 Oct 2010 12:36:03 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=67#comment101 @101.Good luck with that. No MSM outlet, as far as i can tell is covering it. Despite it being exceptionally significant in the whole grand scheme of things... You know, a large part of the data used for the southern hemisphere predictions of cAGW in the ipcc reports was taken from New Zealand and it now turns out that the data was faked.... (or at least the presence of ANY warming trends whatsoever was faked then passed off as 'true' data. It was then hidden and required legal backing to gain access to it).You'd think someone would have picked it up in the msm.... richard?? hello?? Anyone? no?? just carry on as normal then... righto. Mon 11 Oct 2010 11:42:37 GMT+1 Brunnen_G http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=66#comment100 Can someone post a link to a news site (not a blog) covering the 'kiwigate' scandal?Can't seem to find the story on the bbc, for some reason... Mon 11 Oct 2010 11:01:05 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=66#comment99 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/11/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-mann/#more-26235Very good read, but please ignore the tone, (it's obviously very anti and does the author no credit), but the points rasied are significant (and well known). Hopefully Mann will post a response. which i'll link if he does. Mon 11 Oct 2010 10:35:46 GMT+1 Smiffie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=65#comment98 From the article “Opinion poll after opinion poll finds substantial numbers of people (whether it amounts to a global majority is another matter) in many countries in favour of strong action to curb emissions.”Now you may think that some of these opinion polls are just more fabricated data or you may take them as gospel, so can I ask people to do their own survey. Whether you are a warmist, a skeptic or a don’t know (splat) just ask the people around you, at work, waiting to pick up the kids etc, just ask them if they favour strong action to curb emissions (with the necessary sacrifices that will entail). You could also ask them if they had even heard of yesterday’s event. Mon 11 Oct 2010 10:31:27 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=64#comment97 John_from_Hendon #96 wrote:There are people who specialise in long term weather forecasting based upon sun-spot data.There are also people who specialize in life-event forecasting based on the position of the planets at time of birth. -- Just because there are "specialists" doesn't mean that a specialism is reliable.These people (see Weatheraction and read the related papers) achieve considerably more accuracy in forecasting than the met offices of the World.Well that wouldn't be difficult! But the fact is that all long-term weather forecasting is a "crap shoot". Some people have been luckier than others at throwing dice, that's all.Don't get me wrong -- I think solar activity probably has a more pronounced effect on the climate than CO2, because historically cold periods seem to loosely coincide with low sunspot activity. But let's be honest and admit it's anyone's guess -- none of these forecasts have been tested in an honest way. We just don't know. That's why I remain a sceptic. Mon 11 Oct 2010 10:23:06 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=64#comment96 John_from_Hendon #96."A bit like: first you switch on the cooker than the water in the pot gets hotter. That is the effect is a rise in CO2 and cause is a rise in temperature. So it logically follows that external heating causes the CO2 to rise and NOT the other way round. I hope that is now clear?"http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/ Mon 11 Oct 2010 09:35:45 GMT+1 John_from_Hendon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=63#comment95 #36. GeoffWard wrote:"I repeat that CO2 is an 'effect' NOT a 'cause'." (John_from_Hendon wrote @ 19)...............John,I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.Could you have another go at explaining.Geoff."CO2 is generally higher when the planet is warmer.But what happens first - the change of temperature, or the change in CO2.Consider the two cases: First when the CO2 rises first and then the planetary temperature rises and, Second when the temperature rise and then the CO2.The observed data (if you can call them that! and I have lots of concerns about historic and paleo data quality) strongly points to the second case. That is that the temperature changes are reflected in CO2 changes. A bit like: first you switch on the cooker than the water in the pot gets hotter. That is the effect is a rise in CO2 and cause is a rise in temperature. So it logically follows that external heating causes the CO2 to rise and NOT the other way round. I hope that is now clear?#90. bowmanthebard wrote:"88. John_from_Hendon wrote:It seems that the heating effect of solar radiation is higher during solar sunspot minimumsThe "lesson" here is not that solar minimums cause more warming, but that we simply don't know what the effects of solar activity are. The sort of "study" that notes apparent correlations and extrapolates from them does not yield reliable results, explains nothing because it is completely superficial, is generally not subject to testing, and therefore does not deserve the name science.I have to take issue with your statement. There are people who specialise in long term weather forecasting based upon sun-spot data. These people (see Weatheraction and read the related papers) achieve considerably more accuracy in forecasting than the met offices of the World. I think you should look at this field before your condemn solar flux based forecasting as its results seem to be superior to established forecasting models and also that these techniques produce longer term forecasts over decades and that these provide a continuum of 'science' that links weather through to climate, unlike weather forecasting and the highly improbable (or at least considerably less probably) 'CO2 as a cause' brigade whose 'science' is based on highly flawed data and who are unable to provide a working mechanism that links weather through to climate.In consequence you statement; "we simply don't know what the effects of solar activity are" is not supported by the facts and must logically be extremely suspect and, in my view, entirely incorrect. Further you comment that it is "generally not subject to testing" is completely incorrect. Perhaps you should expend a few pounds and buy a long term weather forecast from the solar flux weather forecasters and compare its accuracy with the actual weather events globally before you have a go at them! Mon 11 Oct 2010 08:41:24 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=62#comment94 thrid post in quick succession, apologies- but worth a readhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/09/new-zealands-niwa-temperature-train-wreck/ Mon 11 Oct 2010 08:13:32 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=62#comment93 "82.Paul Butler wrote:#79. LabMunkey wrote:I repeat, the money on the cAGW side dwarfs that of the 'skeptic'. LabMunkey, you need to be precise about what sums you are comparing here. Otherwise I can't make my mind up."------------Did you want the 'adjusted' data or something more credible?I don't have any stats but common sense tells us that a graph of the funding pouring into the AGW crisis research-industrial complex in the past three decades would look like... what else... a hockey stick.In any case, it is not the quantity of dollars (or papers) that counts, it is the quality of the evidence. And despite the vast sums poured into the great climate scare project, no convincing evidence to support it could be found or manufactured. Just overhyped fearmongering propaganda exploiting cute animals and children and Chicken Little speculation based on anecdotes and bogus pseudoscience that fewer and fewer people take seriously anymore. But it is fun to watch the AGW industry and its defenders doing the Black Knight routine, vigorously protesting that the fight goes on - the science is sound I say! - as each of its supporting appendages are chopped off. Mon 11 Oct 2010 08:04:52 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=61#comment92 @ 90" The sort of "study" that notes apparent correlations and extrapolates from them does not yield reliable results, explains nothing because it is completely superficial, is generally not subject to testing, and therefore does not deserve the name science"this deserves re-posting. Follow this basic ruleset and when you see the 'latest research on X,Y,Z' you'll see it for what it really is- pop pscience (note the 'p'). Mon 11 Oct 2010 08:04:31 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=60#comment91 @85 sensiblegrannyas jr442 aptly stated, i too am just muddling along preaching doom (for tax exemption reasons...), but were i to offer my two pence/cents:I'd suggest one or all of the following:-Build nuclear power plants to meet current and expanding demand (for next 50 years).-Abandon wind power-abandon solar power as a CURRENT idea, put pur money into research with a view to a)improving the life-span of the dyes used (critical for cost effectiveness) b)finding effective disposal pathways for the higliy toxic byproducts/research alternaties, c) examine chlorofyl and 'biophotometric' cells (has this been done already????).-research and roll in geothermal plants on a large scale.-more money in tidal.But the important one is the first- meeting the current demands with nuclear to allow us the time to research the rest, with the bonus that nuclear is carbon neutral.@82 and paul butler.Apologies, again i've made the mistake of assuming people knew what i did (i.e. that it was obvious!).I am referring mostly, to the governmental grants, aid and support given to the various research institutes/campaigns/drives that in terms of money allocated, move into terms such as percentage of gdp, rather than the millions the oil companies 'could' muster. Also, there are the private/buisness investments in the field that alone probably match the 'oil lobby'.The cru itself, as an isolated institute recieved (but no longer as the fundings been suspended) over 131 million US dollars over 5 years from the US DOE. It also recieved vast sums from the UK government and independant research institutes/individuals. These figures are or were (!) freely available. Then when you factor in the budget of the IPCC, the rhetoric and support of numerous governments/institutions it all very very quikly adds up to a staggering figure. That was what i was reffering too, i'm sorry i thought it was obvious.@yorkurbantreeIrony of my #63 post still not escaping me, can i re-iterate my request at #79?I still cannot find that survey, perhaps i'm being dense or i'm using the wrong search string. If you could link it i'd be greatful (remember you can't link the actual pdf, but instead link the page PRIOR to the pdf, if you follow).I'd be greatly interested to see it as i'd be very suprised were the numbers to have been so quickly 'reversed' on the publics opinion- especially given that there's been no major political drives/scientific revelations since the BBC poll. Could be very interesting to read.Cheers,LM Mon 11 Oct 2010 08:02:33 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=60#comment90 Paul Butler #73 wrote:I'd have been more interested in Hal Lewis' views if he'd chosen to tell us in his resignation letter the basis of his scientific (especially from the physics point of view) objections to AGW theory.This "begs the question" (in the proper logical sense of the phrase) by assuming that AGW theory is legitimate science. But Lewis's resignation letter makes it clear that he does not regard it as a legitimate science at all:"I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist."By analogy, someone might say that he'd be more interested in Richard Dawkins' atheism if he said more about transubstantiation of the flesh. Mon 11 Oct 2010 07:14:03 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=59#comment89 88. At 10:57pm on 10 Oct 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:It seems that the heating effect of solar radiation is higher during solar sunspot minimumsThe "lesson" here is not that solar minimums cause more warming, but that we simply don't know what the effects of solar activity are. The sort of "study" that notes apparent correlations and extrapolates from them does not yield reliable results, explains nothing because it is completely superficial, is generally not subject to testing, and therefore does not deserve the name science. Mon 11 Oct 2010 07:03:29 GMT+1 Brunnen_G http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=58#comment88 I do love that most people mentioning the warm weather today do so as if there is some sort of link with their pet boogeyman, AGW.Remember last winter? The whining that weather and climate were not the same thing and one couldn't be used to provide proof of the condition of the other came from Richard Black on down.Just thought I'd mention it... Sun 10 Oct 2010 23:26:13 GMT+1 John_from_Hendon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=58#comment87 #28. rossglory wrote: "we're in a solar minimum at the moment. when we come out of it things are going to get really hot. what a joy to look forward to."For heavens sake READ the papers before your half warmed fish of an idea rots. It seems that the heating effect of solar radiation is higher during solar sunspot minimums and you also need to understand the changes in planetary solar orbit and obliquity. (There are also severe problems with temperature data.) But it was locally a lovely unseasonally warm day today. Sun 10 Oct 2010 21:57:04 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=57#comment86 sensiblegrannie #85.oh, you shouldn't ask me, resident doomsayer and all that. :-) Sun 10 Oct 2010 21:52:36 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=56#comment85 #84. sensiblegrannie wrote:Paul Butler at post 78Sigh! You have spoiled the banter.I know - such a boring old pedant, me ;-) Sun 10 Oct 2010 21:40:33 GMT+1 sensiblegrannie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=56#comment84 LabMonkey at post 83 and jr1442You guys sound pretty enlightened. So, what is to be done? night night Sun 10 Oct 2010 21:35:47 GMT+1 sensiblegrannie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=55#comment83 Paul Butler at post 78Sigh! You have spoiled the banter. Sun 10 Oct 2010 20:17:35 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=54#comment82 @ 80.this:"I think that the cumulative effect of the transparent misuse of patents"i agree with 100%this"has caused economic distortions of such magnitude that a few billions would be neither here nor there."not so much"the real questions, as far as I can see, are: can energy production and consumption globally be switched to renewables/alternatives quickly enough when push comes to shove?"short answer no. wind and solar are no-goes for mass use. geothermal's not being used enough and nuclearas the best-case short-term action is being ignored.So IF we do have to make a rapid shift, we're pretty screwed. Sun 10 Oct 2010 20:07:07 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=54#comment81 #79. LabMunkey wrote:I repeat, the money on the cAGW side dwarfs that of the 'skeptic'. LabMunkey, you need to be precise about what sums you are comparing here. Otherwise I can't make my mind up Sun 10 Oct 2010 20:06:59 GMT+1 sensiblegrannie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=53#comment80 Brunnen_G at post 74You are funny!I suppose you could ask at the Yacht club at a little place called Titchfield Haven on the South Coast of England. They might have recorded information on weather and tide for today. I always try to back up info with evidence if specifically asked. ;-) Sun 10 Oct 2010 19:55:31 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=52#comment79 LabMunkey #79."..care to venture the capital being thrown around by the cAGW side? ... the money on the cAGW side dwarfs that of the 'skeptic'."no, firstly I don't have exact numbers, and secondly, I think that the cumulative effect of the transparent misuse of patents has caused economic distortions of such magnitude that a few billions would be neither here nor there. the 'smart money' will be hedged anyway.the real questions, as far as I can see, are: can energy production and consumption globally be switched to renewables/alternatives quickly enough when push comes to shove? will there be enough incentive for those in power to implement such a transition? (after all, it would be more 'economical' to let a sizeable percentage of humanity perish) Sun 10 Oct 2010 19:28:27 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=52#comment78 @77yorkurbantree.Well you'll have to link the survey, i can find no august survey on their website pertaining to climate change. Using either thier search engine or google (other search engines are available) and the serch string 'populas climate change survey august 2010' or variations therof i cannot find the one you mention.Link it and i'll happily look. My comments were based, on as far as i could see, their most recent survey on the issue. Obviously there's zero point me discussing this further (or you that matter) until you link the survey. Then i'll happily comment.Re- you're other points, i am not in denial about anything. i have stated, frequently the criteria that i need for me to change my view on the subject. The criteria to me,after a lot of research that seems to be the crux of the matter. I also, frequently challenge myself to try and find evidence that would disprove my position (the surest test of a theory), so far all i get is more data inaccuracies and exaggerations.One wonders if you could even manage the same, to list the criteria that would make you change your position (and to do it without an appeal to authority)- though as another question- does it not concern you at all, or give you slight pause for thought the repeated issues, problems and overexaggerations made by the cAGW side? Recent example, the manipulated new zealand data?Re- #70 jr4412interesting articles- the patent one's one i've been harping on about for ages incidentally - the big oil don't care if we use oil or not, they OWN all the alternatives.So you've gathered a few articles, mostly opinion pieces etc, but we'll let them stand for now. So, care to venture the capital being thrown around by the cAGW side? It's an interesting comparison, especially when you have to start taking into accounts percentages of budgets for entire countries/institutions....I repeat, the money on the cAGW side dwarfs that of the 'skeptic'. I don't offer this as proof as who's right or wrong (as opposed to yourkurbantree who uses it as direct proof) but only as counter to a much repeated falsehood. Sun 10 Oct 2010 18:41:31 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=51#comment77 #74. Brunnen_G wrote:As for your assertion that the tide was much higher than usual, some evidence would be nice. It's a spring tide. Sun 10 Oct 2010 18:14:23 GMT+1 Yorkurbantree http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=50#comment76 LabMunkey @63: Ouch! You have read the wrong poll. That BBC one was months ago and the new one I was talking about was from late August. It's easy to find using a search engine. I guess as the newer poll makes such uncomfortable reading for your mob you are in denial about it...Jr4412 has provided lots of juicy evidence regarding the other matter. So I think anyone with an open mind can see that the facts speak for themselves. "greenwash. love it! That's basically the cAGW movement summed up right there..."Er no. It's your beloved fossil fuel industry responding to the new reality of climate change in the way they now best."Seriously. read my post in the last thread about scientific process, you're doing precisely what i warned about- going into something with a pre-conceived idea then stopping once you find that 'proof' without ACTUALLY reading further to see if that 'proof' is justified or contradicted later on. All this has done is just show your prejudiced beliefs for what they are."Oh dear. See above for the various inconvinient truths. I suspect the problem with certain people is that they have convinced themselves that there is a great conspiracy at play. As they invest more and more time and effort into the subject, they reman impervious to any evidence that contradicts their theory. You are not the first scientist to get stuck in a certain mindset at the expense of objective thought and you won't be the last... Sun 10 Oct 2010 18:11:43 GMT+1 sensiblegrannie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=50#comment75 Saw an interesting little movie last night called 'Money Never Sleeps.' An explanation in story form about why new environmental technologies find it so hard to get started and why world finances get into so much trouble. For the scientists protesting in London today you are probably wasting your precious time and wages, 'cause if the money ain't there it ain't there and there will always be others in other countries who are willing to work for less. Scary! Sun 10 Oct 2010 18:04:38 GMT+1 Yorkurbantree http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=49#comment74 MangoChutneyUKOK @47:"Could i suggest you Google the phrase "Correlation does not imply causation"?"Oh come on Mango, this is hardly complex stuff. Do any research into environmental psychology and you will see that women are generally more concerned about the state of the environment than men. We also know that elderly people are more conservative than others and that more affluent people will have an interest in preventing things that may limit their wealth. A textbook case of causation infact. Sun 10 Oct 2010 17:58:51 GMT+1 Brunnen_G http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=48#comment73 @71 sensiblegrannie wrote:Yes a great day to go out and enjoy the sunshine. The beach was still there and the tide was much higher than usual. And the sun was burning hot, even through jeans, and it stayed like that until 5pm. Not bad for October in GB----------------------------------------------------The temperature in the UK today varied from 12C in Aberdeen to a very pleasant 17 on the south coast of England. There's a word for temperatures like that in Britain during early October. Normal.As for your assertion that the tide was much higher than usual, some evidence would be nice. Sun 10 Oct 2010 17:53:22 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=48#comment72 #72 beesamanIt would appear that if you're not in the 'Mann' clique or are too old (a bit of ageism thrown in by Paul Butler) then you are not allowed to comment on the psuedoscience of global warmists.OK perhaps I asked for that a bit. However, I'd have been more interested in Hal Lewis' views if he'd chosen to tell us in his resignation letter the basis of his scientific (especially from the physics point of view) objections to AGW theory.But he didn't do that. Instead we get a lot of stuff about the internal politics of the APL and Lewis' personal views about the behaviour of Mike Mann and Phil Jones apparently based on reading Montford's book. Nothing which couldn't have been said by any suspicious anti-warmist. So I still think I'm justified in saying he isn't exactly at the cutting edge, even if pointing out the number of years he's been in the APL is a bit of a cheap shot. Sun 10 Oct 2010 17:51:28 GMT+1 beesaman http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=47#comment71 @ Quake "No one knows who Hal Lewis is. That's not an unfair statement, it's just factual that he's not a household name like say Steven Hawking."Or maybe Michael Mann, after all he's famous for what? Being a political operator in the world of academia. As it he got to his place in the world of climate change without knowing how to play the system. He's certain acquired fame through some dodgy 'analysing' of other 'real' scientists work it would appear. Would you bet your life on his hockey stick? I know I wouldn't. But then even he's tried to make a claim for uncertainty in his recent papers. Pity he's always closing the debate down though, how many peer review panels does he sit on now?The difference between a real scientist like Hawkins and Mann, Hawkins will admit when he's wrong.By the way Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara. He did real hands on science not the psuedoscience that seems to be pre-eminent today.It would appear that if you're not in the 'Mann' clique or are too old (a bit of ageism thrown in by Paul Butler) then you are not allowed to comment on the psuedoscience of global warmists. Maybe that's a good thing because the more we can identify these people (the warmists) the more we can demand their jobs and make sure they are kicked out of our universities when time on global warming is eventually called. Sun 10 Oct 2010 17:36:33 GMT+1 sensiblegrannie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=46#comment70 beesaman at post 44Yes a great day to go out and enjoy the sunshine. The beach was still there and the tide was much higher than usual. And the sun was burning hot, even through jeans, and it stayed like that until 5pm. Not bad for October in GB. Can't say that I remember such hot sunshine in October in my lifetime or perhaps it is because my memory is bad or perhaps because it is warmer. The environmental change message and the healthy lifestyle message (plus warm weather) is beginning to show. Lots of people out cycling with their entire families, big bicycles, small bicycles and bicycles adapted to carry baby or toddler. Lots of walkers, wind surfers, dingy sailors, kite flyers, all out there enjoying the sunshine. Roadside stalls were selling bright orange pumpkins and other locally grown produce. Its not all bad news, not all of the time.GeoffWardpost 26 ;-) x Sun 10 Oct 2010 17:30:08 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=46#comment69 Barry Woods #48."Brilliant..."congrats, my money had been on bowman to get there first; of course, I cannot really take credit for this since I 'stood on the shoulders of (geeky) giants' :-) but thanks anyway.LabMunkey #63."@ yorkundabtree"Just because fossil fuel companies spend money on 'greenwash', that doesn't cancel out the reality of their significant involvement in trying to block progress to a low carbon economy"greenwash. love it! That's basically the cAGW movement summed up right there...Yet youpost no details, no evidence that this is the case."as you can see from the following links, there's plenty of evidence available.much of it, I admit, from blogs and therefore of questionable provenance but there's loads of hard data in those blogs too (patent numbers, names, dates, etc) which will make it easy to corroborate the information, should you be inclined to do so."The company [Shell] has predicted that by 2025, 80% of energy will come from fossil fuels and 20% from alternative energy sources. Yet it is spending just over 1% of its budget on alternative technologies.""The utilization of solar energy was briefly resurrected during the 1970s when the United States appeared to be committed to pursuing a technology that had the potential to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.""This page is a compilation of specific cases in which the emergence of a new energy technology development is impaired in some way by an entity outside themselves..""As a former Patent Examiner, I can tell you that the number of "secretized" patents in the vault at the Patent Office (Park 5 Bldg.) is closer to 4000 or more. They never receive a patent number, and the inventor is rarely, if ever, compensated by the government for use of the invention.""During the same year, Mobil Oil closed its 19-year solar demonstration plant in Billerica, Massachusetts. The New York Times reported that Mobil stated that although it had developed more efficient, less expensive solar cells, “the electric utility industry market for solar energy is small and is unlikely to grow to large-scale demand in the near term.”""Chevron controls the worldwide patent rights for NIMH batteries used in the RAV4-EV, and won't allow their use in EVs""Another bizarre fact then surfaced: The U.S. Department of Energy had placed a restraining order on Johnson's company, Magnatron, Inc., prohibiting it from producing the Magnatron engine"there is, of course, loads more 'interesting stuff' out there. :D Sun 10 Oct 2010 17:06:58 GMT+1 GeoffWard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=45#comment68 ."I wonder what you mean by "hard as diamonds", and how you judge hardness in science?" (bowmanthebard, @ 34)”The kind of science that the IPCC gang does must be really hard because they can't seem to get anything right. Then again, since they twist it so conveniently, it must also be rather soft. It is whatever they want it to be”. (Rockies, @ 39).........................................‘Gang’ ... ‘Twist’ … ‘Soft’:- yes, these are the words of the ‘social’ rather than the science. They frequently occur in this Blog-site...• Returning to the analogy - Hard can be brittle hard or ductile hard; • Performing Laboratory Physical Sciences - outcomes tend to be more ‘brittle’ in that a test usually succeeds or fails. • Adding ‘Life’ into the experiment gives the opportunity to produce variability in results (superficial ‘ductility’) – hence Statistics. • Add ‘Ecology’ and we get high-level complexity – hence High Level Statistics. • Add the ‘Physico-Chemical processes in the Environment’ and the ecology of Climate becomes Higher Level Complexity. • Add ‘Mathematical Modeling’ to this milieu that predicts future states and a range of outputs – and create a probability surface of possible outcomes..Underlying all these levels of analytical and predictive complexity is the maxim that Quality Input allows the potential for Quality Output (but does not ensure it). .If we had a Time Machine, we could set up our standardized experiments at (eg) 10,000 years ago, the Silurian, or Pre-Industrialization; and we would check the predictive models against the range of future realities (In the future, New Zealand and the Arctic, etc. will, of course, have internally-consistent historic & contemporary datasets from comprehensive monitoring arrays)..Defining the Reliability of a result or outcome in terms of Statistics does not transform Hard Science into Soft Science, it simply takes account of the variability in outcomes that always occur when the World Butterfly flaps its wings..We might also remember that Science is just one element of the ‘take’ that humans have on climate & weather; land & sea; human society & development; demand, utilization and the vast array of anthropogenic influences that we apply to the world in which we ‘exist’. These anthropogenic influences don’t make the Science Softer, but they certainly make for extreme complexity in both analysis and understanding. .Frequently in environmental research we have to ‘take out a bit’ and investigate its actions, utility and variability in ‘isolation’ of the world’s full complexity (a bit like applying Computer Diagnostics to a modern car engine). We know ‘the bit’ *in isolation* is illogical in the working of the total system but, like a car’s Diagnostics, we can arrive at truths about the impact of a ‘loose AGW bolt in the system’........ Timing, performance and duration of utility - both cars and Earths wear out prematurely if driven too hard... Sun 10 Oct 2010 16:28:51 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=44#comment67 #65 jasonsceptic wrote:And would anyone care to argue against his credentials as a real scientist at the heart of the global machine? Real scientist, perhaps. At the heart of the global machine (whatever you mean by that)? Well he starts his resignation letter like this:When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago ... Which might give an indication of how active he actually is at heart of said global machine .... Sun 10 Oct 2010 16:26:16 GMT+1 quake http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=44#comment66 "From Hal Lewis' resignation letter. Oddly enough, a major scientist daying such things has not been covered by Auntie. Why?"Because it's not actually newsworthy, despite the blogs trying to spin it as some kind of revelation. Noone knows who Hal Lewis is. That's not an unfair statement, it's just factual that he's not a household name like say Steven Hawking.The APS has over 40,000 members and on a topic that's as politically controversial as climate change you are bound to have APS members that share such views. It's just not a news event. Sun 10 Oct 2010 16:23:00 GMT+1 Brunnen_G http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=43#comment65 @31 Wolfiewoods wrote:I must support what Greenpa said, Richard you will never be able to have a sensible discussion about 350, 10/10/10 or any of your other articles until you bar rent a mob and their campaign of miss information from your blog, just as many other blogs do.-----------------------------------------------Agreed. The only way wolfie and his mob (I can use that term too) can win the debate on climate change is by sticking their fingers in their ears and shout that the debate is over. Sun 10 Oct 2010 16:07:43 GMT+1 jazbo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=42#comment64 “It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”From Hal Lewis' resignation letter. Oddly enough, a major scientist daying such things has not been covered by Auntie. Why?http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.htmlAnd would anyone care to argue against his credentials as a real scientist at the heart of the global machine? Sun 10 Oct 2010 16:00:55 GMT+1 quake http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=42#comment63 Re 60. jasonsceptic:I didn't say CO2 hadn't been higher in the past. I said that it's higher today than it's been in the past million years, possibly 15 million - and I referenced Tripati 2009 for the 15 million figure.You say: "We live in times when C02 has rarely been so low."We didn't live at all in times when CO2 was higher. Our species is only a few hundred thousand years old. When CO2 was higher than present in the past, climate was different."And can you explain how we will ever get the two doublings required to take us to the "tipping point"?"You don't know that a tipping point won't happen at one doubling, or even that one isn't already in the works. Sun 10 Oct 2010 15:56:41 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=41#comment62 busy weekend it would seem @ yorkundabtree"Just because fossil fuel companies spend money on 'greenwash', that doesn't cancel out the reality of their significant involvement in trying to block progress to a low carbon economy"greenwash. love it! That's basically the cAGW movement summed up right there...Yet youpost no details, no evidence that this is the case. I've already said the info is out there to support my assertion that the money being thrown AT cAGW is signficantly more than that being used against. Short of repeating your beliefs again and again, as you're trying to argue this point, care to post some evidence... short of a story about your trip to the train station??Again, at yorkurbantree #45.i thin you actually need to READ the survey.here;'s the linkhttp://www.populuslimited.com/bbc-bbc-poll-on-climate-change-040210.htmlif you look at the second page it would seem that 66% of the population think that cAGW is either not fully proven or not down to man at all.also, looking at page 4 it would seem that most people believed the effects of climate change had been exaggerated.Seriously. read my post in the last thread about scientific process, you're doing precisely what i warned about- going into something with a pre-conceived idea then stopping once you find that 'proof' without ACTUALLY reading further to see if that 'proof' is justified or contradicted later on.All this has done is just show your prejudiced beliefs for what they are. Sun 10 Oct 2010 15:50:06 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=40#comment61 @quake #57The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”So the North committee agreed with Wegman - glad we got that sorted out/Mango Sun 10 Oct 2010 15:47:03 GMT+1 jazbo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=40#comment60 "we're in a solar minimum at the moment. when we come out of it things are going to get really hot. what a joy to look forward to."Hmm, the solar minimum that is now predicted to cause a maunder-like event within 50 years, just as we turn into negative phases of the AMO and PDO.Keep on burning the carbon should be the cry, it could have kept us out of an ice age.Why do people fear a 2 degree rise? I fear the millions of deaths and crop failures that a dip of 2 degress would bring. Sun 10 Oct 2010 15:37:27 GMT+1 jazbo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=39#comment59 12. At 02:24am on 09 Oct 2010, quake wrote:350ppm co2 is of course an arbitrary limit, but you have to set a limit somewhere in order to put the foot on the brakes. 350ppm itself is higher than co2 has been in the past million years, possibly 15 million (Tripati 2009) and we've already passed that and are hitting 390ppm now.-----------------Completely, totally untrue, spin and propaganda.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.pngWe live in times when C02 has rarely been so low. And can you explain how we will ever get the two doublings required to take us to the "tipping point"? Sun 10 Oct 2010 15:31:03 GMT+1 jazbo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=38#comment58 5. At 9:57pm on 08 Oct 2010, indianblue wrote:i am going to do some tree planting in kerala, india.It is just sad that some folks do not understand the importance of climate change mitigation. ignorance is a bliss.The bigger problem than the disputed impact of the logarithmic effects of our current historically low levels of CO2 is of course population increase, something someone from India should be accutely aware of. Sun 10 Oct 2010 15:26:10 GMT+1 jazbo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=38#comment57 This post has been Removed Sun 10 Oct 2010 15:23:42 GMT+1 quake http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=37#comment56 If you want to focus on the bigger picture with regard to climate science and not the errors, plagiarism, NIWA, etc then here's something from the North report:"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward.Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence." Sun 10 Oct 2010 15:22:35 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=36#comment55 @quake #55This could go on all day, so let me ask you a question.Did Dr North / Peter Bloomfield, under oath in the congressional hearing disagree with the conclusions of the Wegman report. A simple yes or no will suffice, but here's a little clue:CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report? DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report./Mango Sun 10 Oct 2010 14:52:57 GMT+1 quake http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=36#comment54 Re 54. MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:"Please don't mention the peer-reviewed paper showing the surfacestations project was rubbish - we both know that paper was based on incomplete data"Unless there is an update showing a different result there is no difference to scientific knowledge.The portions of Bradley's book that were quoted were not referenced (or indeed "quoted"). Citing a source at the end of a paper does not constitute referencing quoted text.There is also unattributed text copied from various scientific papers and even wikipedia articles, not just Bradley's book. For example here's the Wegman Report:"A Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) event is a rapid climate fluctuation, taking place at the end of the Ice Age. Twenty-three such events have been identified between 110,000 and 23,000 years before present."And here's part of the Wikipedia Article on Dansgaard-Oeschger Events event from 2006:"Dansgaard-Oeschger events are rapid climate fluctuations during and at the end of the last ice age. Twenty-three such events have been identified between 110,000 and 23,000 years BP"There's also a whole load of text copied verbatim from the wikipedia article on Social Networks. Sun 10 Oct 2010 14:32:45 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=35#comment53 @quake #51Only if it makes a difference to scientific knowledge.do you mean like the surfacestations project - does that make a difference to scientific knowledge? Please don't mention the peer-reviewed paper showing the surfacestations project was rubbish - we both know that paper was based on incomplete data"Are you not surprised that they claim plagiarism, but don't argue the content of the Wegman report?"They do argue the content.There's no point having a do they / don't they argument, so just point to the bit where they argue the content of the Wegman report i.e. the conclusions.citing it in the footnotes doesn't mean it isn't plagiarismThe Wegman report was not a scientific paper, it was a report to congress. Was Bradleys book cited or not?/Mango Sun 10 Oct 2010 14:10:31 GMT+1 quake http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=34#comment52 Forgot to reference! Fortunately that wasn't plagiarism.John Mashey on Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Reporthttp://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman-report/ Sun 10 Oct 2010 14:01:44 GMT+1 quake http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=34#comment51 Re 49:With regard to SkepticGate, which doesn't just include plagerism but a whole host of other issues:Copyright and plagerism are two entirely seperate things. Copying text from other people's books and from wikipedia verbatim, with slight word changes (some with change the original meaning) is Plagiarism. Unless the copied nature of the paragraphs is made clear with a reference it is plagerism because it falsely conveys the text as the author's own original work. Sun 10 Oct 2010 13:59:31 GMT+1 quake http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/tanjin_talks_work_party.html?page=33#comment50 Re 46. MangoChutneyUKOK:"Unreliable, corrupt temperature records should have a bearing on Cancun."Only if it makes a difference to scientific knowledge. GISTEMP and HadCRUT don't change in light of a NIWA error, so therefore there is no change to scientific knowledge about global temperature change. And as such, it shouldn't have a bearing on Cancun."Are you not surprised that they claim plagiarism, but don't argue the content of the Wegman report?"They do argue the content."I'd be more than happy to see the Cancun conference discuss the "plagiarism" of Wegman, especially when Bradley's book that has been plagiarised happens to be cited in Wegmans report."That's not the only source that was plagiarized, and citing it in the footnotes doesn't mean it isn't plagiarism to copy paste sections verbatim and change the meaning of some of the paragraphs. Sun 10 Oct 2010 13:50:55 GMT+1