Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html en-gb 30 Sun 21 Dec 2014 23:13:09 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=99#comment208 #205. JaneBasingstoke wrote:And Mann included caveats of his own in the MBH 1998 paper. Here's the concluding paragraph (sorry, can't link, pdf). He's hardly claiming it's cast in iron is he? This is an essential point Jane, which is often (always, in some circles) forgotten. Mann would have been well aware that he was at the cutting edge in 1998 - he might have been surprised at the vehemance of some objections (probably more to do with the use that was made of his original hockey stick than with anything about the HS itself) but he wouldn't have been surprised that later reconstructions turn out to have more variability, to be a bit less HS-like (see the quote from MBH1998 in #205)The point, in the end, is to confirm or falsify the idea that continuing emissions of GHGs are harmful. That can only happen with sufficient amounts of data. And it certainly won't happen if relevant research is nipped in the bud. Fri 19 Nov 2010 22:55:31 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=99#comment207 #200. bowmanthebard wrote:Aren't hatefests the main reason we get involved in blogs? -- I love 'em myself.Well OK, but I'm just a bit aware that other people aren't too interested ...almost every mainstream philosopher of science thinks your assumption that science involves starting off with "data" and then moving on to what it implies is just plain flat-footedly wrong. And if you take what mainstream scientists say about science -- the ones who have actually thought about it, reflected on its methods, and so on -- they too say that your assumption is just plain flat-footedly wrong. Mistaken.So what did I originally say, and did I mean what you think I meant?Paul Butler #172 wrote:Its a question of how you move forward when your data are minimal and uncertain.So basically, we go back to the start of climate reconstructions, when there's some kind of match between (say) tree rings and temperature - but it may not be consistent through the period of instrumental measurement.Am I, in fact starting with the data? When I do the reconstruction, am I not assuming (whether or not with any justification) some kind of principle of uniformity - that what happened in the past is similar to what happens now. That is a fundamental underlying principle of geology.Does that help you? Fri 19 Nov 2010 22:41:58 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=98#comment206 #202. CanadianRockies wrote:181. Paul Butler wrote:"I've already been criticized once (rightly) for getting into a hatefest with another poster..."You mean this?"157. At 09:00am on 19 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:canadian + paul.Chaps, cease and desist! :-)"I sure don't see our conversation as anything approaching a "hatefest" of involving "hate" at all. Of course, in our Orwellian age that word has been turned into mush to be used as desired anyways... as in the selective labelling of "hate crimes" and all that.The point is, Canadian, I don't mind discussing things the way we were discussing them, I think it can be quite stimulating. but it does look a bit like a hatefest to outsiders, so when you say this .... For my part, I simply have zero respect for the activists masquerading as scientists who have been leading and perpetrating what is, to me, such an obvious megafraud. Like Jones and Mann. So, I address them with all due respect - and none is due. The same, squared, for the whitewashers and the propagandists which support them.... I suppose to the extent that I regard Jones and Mann as sincere (even if they turn out in the end to have beeen mistaken), I'm in that last group. Which means you treat me with no respect squared (which I suppose is still no respect). Fine. I can deal with that. But you have to accept that its no basis for a discussion which is going to have any interest for anybody else in this thread. Whereas when I talk to LM, well we still may not end up agreeing, but we are at least discussing (in my opinion) the substantive issues.Later on you say thisSo, I view those so-called sceptical scientists with the utmost respect and view the lemmings with pity tinged with contempt. Lenin called such lemmings 'useful idiots.' But I think the "sceptical scientists" - if you mean people like Pielke, Lindzen, Spencer - are far closer to Mann et al than they are to your view. Because they accept the basic physics, even if they are in a minority in how they interpret it.OK? I will engage with you from time to time, but I honestly haven't got the time or energy to get into the sticky details of all the stuff you say ...All the best, though Cheers, Paul Fri 19 Nov 2010 22:32:18 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=98#comment205 @CanadianRockies #203I don't know where you draw the line between relevant science and "this AGW project". So I can't answer that question.The scientists may not be monks, but there is a world of difference between their attitudes to the science and the non-scientist politician attitudes. And that applies on both sides of the debate.I would like to discuss Hansen further with you. But that looks like another marathon discussion.I am not ceding the debate, just anticipating this thread closing very soon. Fri 19 Nov 2010 22:28:52 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=97#comment204 @bowmanthebard #197There is a difference between scientists being attached to their pet theories and scientists avoiding caveats. Divergence was in the peer reviewed literature before the first Hockey Stick was published. And Mann included caveats of his own in the MBH 1998 paper. Here's the concluding paragraph (sorry, can't link, pdf). He's hardly claiming it's cast in iron is he?"As larger numbers of high-quality proxy reconstructions become available in diverse regions of the globe, it may be possible to assimilate a more globally representative multiproxy data network. Given the high level of skill possible in large-scale reconstruction back to 1400 with the present network, it is reasonable to hope that it may soon be possible to faithfully reconstruct mean global temperatures back over the entire millennium, resolving for example the enigmatic7 medieval period. Geothermal measurements from boreholes50 recover long-term temperature trends without many of the complications of traditional proxy indicators and, in combination with traditional multiproxy networks, may prove helpful in better resolving trends over many centuries. With a better knowledge of how the climate has varied before the twentieth century, we will be able to place even better constraints on the importance of natural and anthropogenic factors governing the climate of the past few centuries, factors which will no doubt continue to affect climate variability in the future, in addition to any anthropogenic effects." Fri 19 Nov 2010 22:18:38 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=97#comment203 Re wind power.If the whole equation is examined - from manufacture to delivery to installation to supporting infrastructure to maintenance to replacement - it is clear that there is zero net benefit in terms of CO2 emissions. And all for an unreliable and very expensive energy source.It does, however, enrich certain people at the expense of the taxpaying 'commoners.' Let them eat Green cake! Fri 19 Nov 2010 20:59:55 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=96#comment202 190. JaneBasingstoke wrote:"Actually I quite like the 2003 Iraq war metaphor. I think it illustrates perfectly how scientific experts provide caveats that get ignored by politicians keen for a simple interpretation to push their message."Great. You recognize that this AGW project is not based on science. All humans, including those who happen to work in "science," are political animals. So all scientists ARE politicians on some level, some much more than others.Is James Hansen a scientist or a politician? The other Big Joke is the concept that just because someone trained in some field of science they miraculously become objective monks immune to all political and economic realities. Tooooo ridiculous. Particularly given the state of modern universities/indoctrination centers. Back to the hockey stick. Whatever may have been stated in any actual scientific debate, that became the primary device this gang used to sell the AGW scare story to the public. How many times was it used?And how many times did Mann or any of his cronies make the uncertainties about it clear to the public?If you look into this whole sordid affair you will discover that Mann's whole skyrocketing career was based on his creation of that false icon, and it was obvious how dishonestly he did it.Oh well. Hockey stick. Piltdown Man. Iraqi WMDs. What next? Fri 19 Nov 2010 20:30:56 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=96#comment201 181. Paul Butler wrote:"I've already been criticized once (rightly) for getting into a hatefest with another poster..."You mean this?"157. At 09:00am on 19 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:canadian + paul.Chaps, cease and desist! :-)"I sure don't see our conversation as anything approaching a "hatefest" of involving "hate" at all. Of course, in our Orwellian age that word has been turned into mush to be used as desired anyways... as in the selective labelling of "hate crimes" and all that.Remarkable how accurate Orwell's 1984 really was!For my part, I simply have zero respect for the activists masquerading as scientists who have been leading and perpetrating what is, to me, such an obvious megafraud. Like Jones and Mann. So, I address them with all due respect - and none is due. The same, squared, for the whitewashers and the propagandists which support them.But back to #157, where LabMunkey wrote:"There is NO massive conspiracy..."Maybe LM and you need to read the link provided at #156 from MangoC (or the same report an wattsupwiththat) which he accurately summarized as:"In an interview with the German publication, NZZ am Sonntag, German economist and joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the IPCC tells us AGW is now about redistribution of wealth (as if we didn't already know!)"Get it... yet? Follow the money. And don't be fooled into thinking that it will actually go the the poor folks. Massive layers of Wall Streeter middlemen and planet savers - the eco-crisis industrial complex - all need new shoes, apparently. Then LabM writes: "but there is... evidence of group think contamination-specifically with regard to the scientific process."And this groupthink just happens to conveniently support that OneWorldWatermelon agenda. Do you suppose that was an accident?But then LabM throws this out: "Do i think climate scientists are evil people out to defraud the planet? -no, of course not."Sorry, LabM but that's a simplistic overgeneralization that ignores your groupthink statement. SOME so called "climate scientists" are indeed in on this but most are just hapless groupthinkers - 'good Germans' - going with the flow... except for all the "climate scientists" who courageously remained objective in the face of the mob screaming 'denier' and cutting off their access to publication, funding, career opportunities, etc.So, I view those so-called sceptical scientists with the utmost respect and view the lemmings with pity tinged with contempt. Lenin called such lemmings 'useful idiots.' In any case, the jig is up. Too late for the UK though. 18 billion pounds a year, based on this "science." Big Green Inc. thanks you.Happy Climategate Day! Fri 19 Nov 2010 20:11:18 GMT+1 Brunnen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=95#comment200 @bowmanYou're absolutely right, we all hate being corrected. However, there comes a point when we just have to accept we were wrong and adjust our worldview accordingly.Up until about three years ago I was an advocate of the bull being spouted by the IPCC. cAGW, massive sea level rises, melting polar caps, drowning islands, dying polar bears, the lot.I was challenged by a friend to prove that the assumptions the AGW hypothesis was built on (and the subsequent doomcrying) had basis in fact. I couldn't find proof for ANY of it. In fact, I found a hell of a lot more convincing evidence showing that humans have virtually no impact on the climate.And thus, painful though it was, I had to admit I was wrong and adjust my worldview. Fri 19 Nov 2010 19:44:29 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=95#comment199 Paul Butler #181 wrote:Look Bowman, I've already been criticized once (rightly) for getting into a hatefest with another poster, so I'm not going to get into another one with you :-)Aren't hatefests the main reason we get involved in blogs? -- I love 'em myself.Sadly you'll have to explain them again and why I have apparently failed them before I can respond informatively.All righty then. I get the impression that most people who are interested in science dismiss what philosophers of science say, and frankly I don't blame them. All the same, if like Tim you regard mainstream thinking as more trustworthy than the stuff blogging numpties come up with, almost every mainstream philosopher of science thinks your assumption that science involves starting off with "data" and then moving on to what it implies is just plain flat-footedly wrong. And if you take what mainstream scientists say about science -- the ones who have actually thought about it, reflected on its methods, and so on -- they too say that your assumption is just plain flat-footedly wrong. Mistaken.Now of course we all hate being corrected. But sometimes hatred of being corrected grows into an inability to learn anything new. For the love of Mike, would you please consider what mainstream philosophers of science and mainstream scientists-who-have-given-real-thought-to-the-nature-of-scientific-method say about it? Fri 19 Nov 2010 18:59:38 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=94#comment198 #196. bowmanthebard wrote:But the real danger of wind power -- in the future -- is that more expensive energy means more expensive food, and that means more people live "on the margins", vulnerable to diseases of malnutrition or even famines. And that spells death, not just fewer humans being born.Two things about this:(a) Usual point about wind power - nobody thinks it should be the only source of energy. So if its used sensibly - that is in places where its most efficient, with the baseload coming from nuclear or tidal or hydro - it should become cheaper as techniques improve(b) Usual point about the argument from poverty: perhaps the problem is not that energy is too expensive, but that in the unregulated system we have right now, some people are required/allowed to be too poor. Fri 19 Nov 2010 18:55:45 GMT+1 Brunnen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=94#comment197 196. At 6:10pm on 19 Nov 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:I'd say it's statistically inevitable that more workers have been killed in farming accidents involving windmills than in or near nuclear power plants.--------------------------------------------------------------Apparently the leading cause of accidents involving wind energy farms is "blade failure," which is when a turbine blade breaks, sending shrapnel flying through the air and into the body of some poor bugger in a hi-vis vest.I posted a link to a lengthy Swedish report on the relative deaths caused by the differing ways we make energy, sadly it has been referred for further consideration, so expect to see the link about the same time Haley's Comet returns... Fri 19 Nov 2010 18:39:00 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=93#comment196 JaneBasingstoke #190 wrote:scientific experts provide caveats that get ignored by politicians keen for a simple interpretation to push their messageActually, I don't think that's true at all. Scientists are all partisans for their own theory (perhaps we should say "paradigm" or ideology), and tend to sweep its weaknesses under the rug, to hide it from their opponents and even themselves. They sincerely turn a blind eye to its failings.Another mistake we nearly all make (not just scientists) is that scientific knowledge is brilliant, but not because it's secure or certain. It's actually very insecure and uncertain. It is brilliant because of its penetrating power -- its ability to reveal the hidden structure of reality. But it buys its penetrating power at the cost of its certainty. Fri 19 Nov 2010 18:17:15 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=93#comment195 Brunnen #191: globally wind power has caused more fatalities than nuclear power (yes, including Chernobyl).Paul Butler #194: Where does that info come from? (I hope you're not just talking about the birds!)Never seen Bride of Frankenstein? Those windmill things are lethal!http://movieclips.com/iJnZX-frankenstein-movie-windmill-burns-down/I'd say it's statistically inevitable that more workers have been killed in farming accidents involving windmills than in or near nuclear power plants.But the real danger of wind power -- in the future -- is that more expensive energy means more expensive food, and that means more people live "on the margins", vulnerable to diseases of malnutrition or even famines. And that spells death, not just fewer humans being born. Fri 19 Nov 2010 18:10:06 GMT+1 Brunnen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=92#comment194 No no,Paul. I'm talking about people.Sadly you'll have to wade through this rather lengthy report to confirm my claim, but nuclear power has caused less deaths, human deaths, than ANY other form of mass generating electricity.http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf Fri 19 Nov 2010 17:46:25 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=92#comment193 #191. Brunnen wrote:And of course, we have to consider that globally wind power has caused more fatalities than nuclear power (yes, including Chernobyl).Where does that info come from? (I hope you're not just talking about the birds!) Fri 19 Nov 2010 17:26:16 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=91#comment192 i see Stern is threatening the USA if they don't deliver in Cancun - probably has the Americans trembling in their boots ;)/Mango Fri 19 Nov 2010 17:13:21 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=91#comment191 @LabMunkey #164(@Tim)Reminder. There are a lot of Gerlich and Tscheucheners out there. And quite a few Oliver K Manuels. You might like to make it clear that your main objection to mainstream AGW is you think mainstream climate scientists overestimate climate sensitivity (hence the c for "catastrophic" in your reference to cAGW), and that many of your reasons are not dismissed out of hand by the mainstream.Olly and his iron sun. Bless.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQZe_Qk-q7M Fri 19 Nov 2010 17:11:25 GMT+1 Brunnen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=90#comment190 As I said Paul, if it weren't for the greens, nuclear waste would be a non issue. It's 97% recyclable, which is impressive by any standard.And of course, we have to consider that globally wind power has caused more fatalities than nuclear power (yes, including Chernobyl). Fri 19 Nov 2010 16:43:22 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=90#comment189 @CanadianRockies #147Actually I quite like the 2003 Iraq war metaphor. I think it illustrates perfectly how scientific experts provide caveats that get ignored by politicians keen for a simple interpretation to push their message. Perhaps Jones's and Mann's biggest mistake was to fail to anticipate the way that the caveats about the Hockey Sticks (such as "divergence" being still the ongoing subject of debate amongst mainstream climate scientists) would get stripped out at the first opportunity by over eager activists and politicians.What was the Iraq War term for such material. Oh yes, "sexed up".http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3895135.stmIn the meantime you may need reminding that Mann used RealClimate to try and get across the fact that Hockey Sticks were not the "proof" of AGW."MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth. This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth’s surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this conclusion is the evidence from so-called “Detection and Attribution Studies”. Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)."http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/ Fri 19 Nov 2010 16:43:22 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=89#comment188 @LabMunkey #186Just because the police might be in a position to keep the public better informed, doesn't mean that they will do. And that's always assuming that any official announcement wouldn't tip off some criminal. Be fair, with the cuts on the way the police have got manpower worries to deal with, and the main effect of telling the public part of the story will be that more of the public hassle them for the rest. Fri 19 Nov 2010 16:40:10 GMT+1 Tim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=89#comment187 @ #187There's the waste issue for a start ...As Brunnen pointed out, by reprocessing we could cut the waste problem down hugely, whilst also getting a longer useful life out of the fuel.I understand there are concerns about the use of reproceded fuel in weapons. Anyway, we need to continue to actively research nuclear but use what we have, even though it isn't perfect. The same goes for wind, solar, tidal and practically every other energy generation method. The more the merrier in fact as you certainly don't want all your eggs in one basket when it comes to energy.Maybe one day > break even fusion will be less than 50 years away. Fri 19 Nov 2010 16:34:20 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=88#comment186 # 180. Brunnen wrote:As for you taking umbrage at my statement regarding the reaction to the mention of the n word (no, not THAT one, nuclear) I specified watermelon environmentalists. Green on the outside, red on the inside. Are you one of them?Oh I see. No I don't think I'm "red", although I do support a kind of social democracy on a western European model so I suppose there are people across the pond who'd think I was a tad socialist.Anyway, what I'm trying to get around to is that I'm not convinced that watermelon greens are more likely to have a kneejerk anti-nuclear response than the ones who are green all the way through. There's the waste issue for a start ... Fri 19 Nov 2010 16:07:25 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=88#comment185 @jane.there is that possibility, but given the size of the files and techniques employed the odds are on a 'private' use (so i've been told).Again, yes there are numerous ways to bounce IP's, leave apparent dead ends and generally misslead. But with the resources the police have to bear it should still only take a relatively short time to track them down.they certainly could CONFIRM it was a hack by releasing the initial IP logs to show the source was external. that would prove it beyond doubt in about, oh i don't know, 3 seconds. Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:58:52 GMT+1 Tim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=88#comment184 >>You've given no thought at all to the idea that observations test >>theories rather than function as a basis for them, have you?Surely that cuts both ways. Is it not acceptable to see an effect and then theorize as to what might cause it? Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:54:18 GMT+1 Tim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=87#comment183 >>Would those be the same "modestly funded" researchers who have received >>$79 BILLION in funding since 1989 in the USA alone? Please, tell us some >>more about these impoverished martyrs...Well, I'd need a detailed breakdown of where that $79 billion went. If you're including anything that could even tangentially be connected with furthering some conspiratorial green agenda then that could include every weather satellite that's been sent up in the USA since 1989.I guess shills, smear campaigns, stealing emails and taking them out of context are pretty cheap compared to satellites and Antarctic ice-core projects. Sorry, getting rather cross again.I hear the clean-up in the gulf is going to cost a fair bit, if we needed any more reason to find alternatives. Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:44:59 GMT+1 Brunnen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=87#comment182 #179. At 3:27pm on 19 Nov 2010, Tim wrote: What I want to know why is nuclear waste ever waste? Surely if it's still chucking out radiation, it's still a viable energy source? Or do we not have any effective way of capturing the energy after a few half-lives?-------------------------------------------------------------We can easily use spent fuel rods again. It's called nuclear reprocessing. In fact it's 97% efficent and as such can be reprocessed many times.Unfortanately, in countries like the USA, it is illegal to reprocess spent fuel rods and they must instead be buried deep underground. We have the greenies to thank for that one. Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:43:25 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=86#comment181 @LabMunkey #157You do know about IP spoofing, don't you? Various sneaky ways IT criminals can hide their identity online.And then what happens if the IP is genuine, but belongs to an internet café? Or a borrowed PC / connection? Or a leaky Wi-Fi network? Or is in a country with weak IT law enforcement?Now I'm no IT security expert. But there are some experts over at Symantec, they seem to think it a going concernhttp://www.symantec.com/connect/articles/ip-spoofing-introductionhttp://uk.norton.com/familyresources/resources.jsp?title=safe-wi-fi-connection Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:41:29 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=86#comment180 # 177. bowmanthebard wrote:You've given no thought at all to the idea that observations test theories rather than function as a basis for them, have you?The very idea is too alien to you to make you even snort in your sleep. Enjoy your dogmatic slumbers!Look Bowman, I've already been criticized once (rightly) for getting into a hatefest with another poster, so I'm not going to get into another one with you :-) I know you yourself have some fairly (dogmatic?) views on hypothesis testing. Sadly you'll have to explain them again and why I have apparently failed them before I can respond informatively. Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:35:28 GMT+1 Brunnen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=85#comment179 #174. At 3:15pm on 19 Nov 2010, Paul Butler wrote:Now what about you - do you think its worth continuing to research into renewables, or should we just junk the lot?---------------------------------------------------Research, certainly. I'll even take the alternatives seriously when they can reliably produce the same amount of energy as coal or gas and don't rely on killing Chinese people to make them (solar power, I'm looking in your direction).As for you taking umbrage at my statement regarding the reaction to the mention of the n word (no, not THAT one, nuclear) I specified watermelon environmentalists. Green on the outside, red on the inside. Are you one of them? Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:33:50 GMT+1 Tim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=85#comment178 >>Some greenies have a kneejerk reaction to nuclearTrue, some people do. What I want to know why is nuclear waste ever waste? Surely if it's still chucking out radiation, it's still a viable energy source? Or do we not have any effective way of capturing the energy after a few half-lives?In the meantime, I think that even at the current efficiencies and even at the UK's latitude, ubiquitous, cheap photovoltaic should be a game changer. Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:27:41 GMT+1 Brunnen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=84#comment177 #163. At 12:00pm on 19 Nov 2010, Tim wrote:So, balancing out the various vested interests, I choose to place more weight on what modestly funded researchers are showing me, rather than what the extremely well funded fossil fuel industries are telling me. The researches have little to gain, the energy giants have everything to lose.-----------------------------------------------------Would those be the same "modestly funded" researchers who have recieved $79 BILLION in funding since 1989 in the USA alone? Please, tell us some more about these impoverished martyrs... Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:22:26 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=84#comment176 Paul Butler #172 wrote:Its a question of how you move forward when your data are minimal and uncertain.You've given no thought at all to the idea that observations test theories rather than function as a basis for them, have you?The very idea is too alien to you to make you even snort in your sleep. Enjoy your dogmatic slumbers! Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:21:15 GMT+1 Tim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=83#comment175 >>Maybe shifting the human population to Mars, or freezing everyone in >>carbonite? :)Sign me up for Mars! We could do with some global warming there, although the lack of magnetic field might be problematic. Also, the wife my take some convincing. Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:18:58 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=83#comment174 @ paul"I hope it does convince you that the effort to improve them is worthwhile."that was never in doubt paul- improvement is always something to strive for. Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:16:41 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=82#comment173 #169. Brunnen wrote:The way forward for cheap, abundant, clean energy is (and always has been) nuclear. Too bad the watermelons hate that word so much. They bleat about CO2, mindlessly repeating whatever talking point The Gaurdian and Al Gore have given them this week and yet when the one VIABLE alternative to meeting the planet's energy needs is mentioned, hands are thrown up in horror.No Brunnen they (we?) don't. Your comment is a rank generalization. Some greenies have a kneejerk reaction to nuclear, others have decided that if we're going to be serious about a response to climate change, nuclear has to be part of the mix.Now what about you - do you think its worth continuing to research into renewables, or should we just junk the lot? Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:15:18 GMT+1 Tim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=82#comment172 Thanks for the links. Yeah... Dellingpole, he sure puts the Pole in polemic. Ok, so if link#1 is to be believed, there has been a lot of government funding in to climate change research. Well, it's kind of heartening to see that governments do spend money reacting to research conclusions.Do you remember the Y2k bug? Despite the naysayers, that was a big fat problem. A bunch of money was spent fixing it by bringing old Cobol programmers out of retirement to allow legacy systems to store dates in 4 digits. We'll only know if that money was well spent if we went back in time and played the whole thing again without fixing it to see if any reactors went into melt down. However, even if some of the more news worthy claims were exaggerated, it certainly was a problem and it was fixed by hard work. I'd say a large chunk of research spending into climate change would be in the launching and developing of satellites to monitor our climate. Personally, I think that's money well spent. Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:14:21 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=81#comment171 #157. LabMunkey wrote:canadian + paul.Chaps, cease and desist! :-)You'd get further discussing these rather than taking swipes at each others ideological positions. Play the ball chaps, not the man.Absolutely right. I really do try not to get into that kind of argument - but I think CR and me got into a bit of mutual provocation there, with me deliberately using warmist buzz words which were probably somewhat intended to press his buttons (sorry CR:-) )Just a point on thisbut there is (and apologies Paul there can be little debate on this fact) evidence of group think contamination- specifically with regard to the scientific process.Its a question of how you move forward when your data are minimal and uncertain. I think things have moved on since Mann's original hockey stick was the only game in town. There are now more proxy archives, and the scientists are looking at more sophisticated ways of processing them and including them in the models. Hence the "secret" meeting in Portugal referred to upthread. The important point is not so much how warm it was during the Medieval Climate Anomaly/MWP, but the drivers behind it and how it might have propagated worldwide and the extent to which modern warming may or may not have the same drivers.So, yes there has been some defensiveness - you can see this in the climategate emails and in the relatively closed access to contrarians on RealClimate.I actually don't think the challenges posed by people like McIntyre, Lindzen and Pielke are by any means bad in themselves (even though McIntyre and Watts in particular do also provide echo chambers for what I regard as very negative attitudes to the whole field - I find people like Monkton, for example, scientifically illiterate). I think in the long run the effect of these challenges will be to tighten up data collection and processing standards. Finally kudos to you for reading that document about the models in detail. While it probably won't convince you that they aren't flawed, I hope it does convince you that the effort to improve them is worthwhile.Cheers, Paul :-) Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:10:01 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=81#comment170 @169yes i know, but they are constant energy sources unlike wind which is intermittant and solar whith it's toxic by products.And geothermal is already available privatley. Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:10:01 GMT+1 Robert Lucien http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=80#comment169 #166. At 1:15pm on 19 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:' ..."and can you deny that the source of this is the oil industry?"if you mean funding, then i think you'll find that the amount of money put into 'anti' campagins is dwarfed by the 'pro' campaigns.Seriously- there's articles on this recently- the pro side money is something like a factor of 100 larger than the anti side.'Agree with you mostly LabMunky certainly on energy. But given that the oil industry has at least a trillion dollars of free money slushing around thast puts the environmental campaigners at pretty rich, at least 100 trillion dollars. At that amount of money even the most extreme science fiction solutions I am interested should begin to become possible. Maybe shifting the human population to Mars, or freezing everyone in carbonite? :) Fri 19 Nov 2010 15:07:56 GMT+1 Brunnen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=80#comment168 #166. At 1:15pm on 19 Nov 2010, LabMunkey wrote:Geothermal, tidal and gravity based power supplies are the way forward.-----------------------------------------------------------Actually, those forms of generating electricity as early stage as solar and wind.The way forward for cheap, abundant, clean energy is (and always has been) nuclear. Too bad the watermelons hate that word so much. They bleat about CO2, mindlessly repeating whatever talking point The Gaurdian and Al Gore have given them this week and yet when the one VIABLE alternative to meeting the planet's energy needs is mentioned, hands are thrown up in horror. Fri 19 Nov 2010 14:52:25 GMT+1 BlueRock http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=79#comment167 This post has been Removed Fri 19 Nov 2010 14:48:40 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=79#comment166 info re my post # 166http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058598/global-warming-fraud-the-tide-begins-to-turn/dellingpole- but the links are good (re the money). Fri 19 Nov 2010 13:23:22 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=78#comment165 "Can you deny that there's been an enormous amount of FUD surrounding this issue "not sure what you mean by FUD."and can you deny that the source of this is the oil industry?"if you mean funding, then i think you'll find that the amount of money put into 'anti' campagins is dwarfed by the 'pro' campaigns. Seriously- there's articles on this recently- the pro side money is something like a factor of 100 larger than the anti side.Re- solar. my issues are the lifespans of the dyes, the toxic byproducts of these dyes, the disposal of the dyes and the amount of energy (coal powered as most is supllied by china) which goes into making these dyes.solar WILL become a viable power source, at present however it just isn't. Same with wind- though that's even LESS usefull.Geothermal, tidal and gravity based power supplies are the way forward. Fri 19 Nov 2010 13:15:32 GMT+1 Tim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=78#comment164 >>May i suggest you desist from this line of reasoning and actually >>address what people say rather than what you think they are >>saying/represent. It only reflects poorly on yourself.I've only waded in here because I'm tired of seeing the one sided diatribes on the BBCs climate blog. I don't believe that every person who denies the evidence for AGW is a shill but I'm certain that some are. That's just sensible, if rotten, PR if AGW is tantamount to a damning criticism of your core business. Can you deny that there's been an enormous amount of FUD surrounding this issue and can you deny that the source of this is the oil industry?>>not wind or solar at presentI wouldn't say that. There have been great strides in making solar energy affordable (Nanosolar have a printing process for cells and those big desert tower things are simple and efficient) and wind works too. The bigger issue is energy storage but we can only benefit from the continued active research into new battery and capacitor technologies. Fri 19 Nov 2010 12:56:52 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=77#comment163 @ tim # 163"So, balancing out the various vested interests, I choose to place more weight on what modestly funded researchers are showing me, rather than what the extremely well funded fossil fuel industries are telling me. The researches have little to gain, the energy giants have everything to lose."Tim, you cannot possible be this ill informed on the funding side so i am going to assume you said that on purpose knowing it was a lie. Bad form, it's pretty clear by now just which side has the larger funding.As an aside i'd like to add that i'm a cAGW skeptic (for now) and i recylce, only drive when necessary, believe we should be doing more to protect the planet, it's habitats and the organisms in them. That man can do significantly more to lessen his impact on the environment. that unchecked capatalism (despite being an ardent capatalist) is ultimatley damaging and that most people would be far happier if they ditched the pursit of money and power over everything else. That people should do more to grow their own food- support local farmers and do what they can to improve the standards of (food chain) animal welfare. that alternatives to oil must be found and quickly and that clean, renewable energy (not wind or solar at present) is the way forward.But i also think cAGW is not supported by the evidence at present.To try to suggest that anyone who is counter cAGW is a big oil funded shill who burns car tyres for fun is just the same as suggesting all climate scientists are in on some big conspiracy- it's a fallacy that only exists in prejudiced minds.May i suggest you desist from this line of reasoning and actually address what people say rather than what you think they are saying/represent. It only reflects poorly on yourself.This goes for both sides of the debate. Fri 19 Nov 2010 12:33:16 GMT+1 Tim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=77#comment162 #160:The only thing I believe in is evidence so don't pull up that daft piece of insulting misdirection; that 'belief' in climate change is some sort of religion or Santa proxy. No, I am merely concerned that our actions as a species are altering our climate in ways that may eventually prove catastrophic for us. As I said before, I sincerely hope that this isn't the case. I'd rather have egg on my face than be correct, in this case. You didn't back up your '1 degree in 200 years' with any references. That said, even 1 degree is a lot when you're talking about average temperatures over a non-geological period of time. Rather than coherent arguments against the whole idea that we can and are changing our climate, I see a lot of wishful thinking from people who don't want to admit that what they do can cause problems. I see a lot of hard data suggesting that we ARE causing problems. >>The rest is fear, hate, envy, and greed disguised as science in my opinionFear: yes, I am afraid of what might happen if we don't start acting like responsible hominids.Hate: What? I don't hate anybody. I dislike a whole bunch of people but hate is too strong a word.Envy: Err, no. I don't want a 4x4, that doesn't mean I can't afford one.Greed? This takes the biscuit. Greed is wanting to continue profiting from harmful practices. Greed is tobacco companies telling you that smoking is good for you (I smoked for years, it isn't). Greed is oil companies telling you that global warming doesn't exist. Scientists don't get paid that much. I know, I used to be a research scientist myself. There are far easier ways to make money than to invent a global conspiracy just to get some paltry research funding. As dastardly plots go, that would be pretty weak.So, balancing out the various vested interests, I choose to place more weight on what modestly funded researchers are showing me, rather than what the extremely well funded fossil fuel industries are telling me. The researches have little to gain, the energy giants have everything to lose. Fri 19 Nov 2010 12:00:55 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=77#comment161 i also agree that using historical high temp anomolies does not prove that the world is not getting warmer. Fri 19 Nov 2010 11:48:17 GMT+1 blunderbunny http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=76#comment160 @Paul Butler and Andrew999Sorry chaps, bit sore of head this morning, my own fault, but I'm a tad delcate so I'll do this slowly.Paul:You make a fair point, that I'm happy to accept uncertainies if the paper says, what I want to hear. I'd argue that you're guilty of the same, but it was a fair point. It is possible that the tropospheric humidity trends from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems with the instrumentation and operation of the global radiosonde network from which the data are derived, but they are consistent and they should at least be classed as interesting and you have to admit, that both the models and the satellite measurements have their own problems.Andrew:I'm really not sure what point you're now trying to make, but I thank you for the apology. The GISS winter anomaly, does potentially have a source in data quality errors. Indeed, those very errors changed the temperature of finland by 11+ degrees last winter/spring, which came as a bit of a shock the finnish met office. GISS corrected this, but that's only because people complained about it officially, Left as it was, it would now be part of the temperature record and it's difficult to prove things wrong in retrospect.Anyway, time for some sort of tablet/bacon experienceRegards,One of the Lobby Fri 19 Nov 2010 11:35:12 GMT+1 Eric http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=76#comment159 On Forming An Opinion"In the matter of slavish imitation, man is the monkey's superior all the time. The average man is destitute of independence of opinion. He is not interested in contriving an opinion of his own, by study and reflection, but is only anxious to find out what his neighbor's opinion is and slavishly adopt it."MARK TWAINSo many opine on climate change- You want to believe in Santa OK, You want to believe in your version of faith OK, you can believe in AGW that is also OK-- just do not confuse belief with fact or something that is opinion, taste or preferance with something either suppported or not supported by data.At this point we have a 1 degree increase in 200 years. The AGW belief is that the model of the week is correct and AGW is true. If the model does not agree we change the model or the data! So many say it is so but do not understand the facts or history of the subject.The rest is fear, hate, envy, and greed disguised as science in my opinion Fri 19 Nov 2010 11:20:36 GMT+1 quake http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=75#comment158 Re 132"HIGHEST TEMPERATURES WORLDWIDEWorld Libya 1922 58CN America Death Valley 1913 57CAsia Israel 1942 54CAustralia Queensland 1889 53CEurope Spain 1881 50CS America Argentina 1905 49CCanada Saskatchewan 1937 45COceania Philippines 1912 42CAntarctica Vanda Station 1974 15C"The world is indeed warmer than it was 30 years ago, let alone 80 years ago. So the question is why, despite this, have continents not broken new records at some location.The answer is one of statistics and limited sample size. Records for *continents* over the last *100 years* sounds like a big statistic until you realize that records can only be broken during a small part of the year and in small areas of the continent.For example Europe is a big area, but a new temperature record for Europe is never going to be made in Iceland is it? The record in the list is for Spain, which is sufficiently far south to make sense.A new record is also not going to be made in November, or January, or March, but in a summer month.So the record making is greatly restricted to areas in the South of Europe during summer. A much smaller area and a much smaller timescale that reduces the probability of a record being broken in a warming world.I suggest to solve these problems by instead looking at "HIGHEST TEMPERATURE *ANOMALIES* WORLDWIDE". That would pick up unusual records during winter and in higher latitudes of Europe too. My guess is that by doing that you would see a lot of new records in recent years. Especially also if the analysis incorperates more samples by doing a "Top 10 records of Europe, Asia, etc" rather than just the top record of each continent. Fri 19 Nov 2010 10:59:36 GMT+1 Tim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=75#comment157 I've read some posts that state that because the highest instantaneous temperature ever recorded was some time ago, the world is not on average getting hotter. If you want to do any kind of statistical analysis, you have to have a large enough sample size. That's why average temperature is more important and I read here (and in many other places) that the average temperature is indeed creeping up:http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.htmlNASA build, operate and deliver the instruments that measure this stuff. That is science in action. I'll trust them over trolls/shills/numpties on internet forums, thankyouverymuch.Now, I hope GW is false as much as anybody. I've got no desire to see the world get any warmer at all. I'm very much a cold, dry weather person. I just don't conflate what I want with what I see. I also don't get my pay checks from the oil industry. Looking at the energy (ha) people put into discrediting the science and the scientists themselves, either you -really- don't want to face up to the fact that your 4x4 and holidays might be causing some problems or you're trying to engineer some FUD for your paymasters. If that is the case with anybody here, I doubt any kind of appeal to morality will have any effect but I'll try anyway:The things we are doing as a species can and are having an effect on our climate. There are so many of us that practically everything we do on an industrial scale is going to have some effect. It is foolish to deny the evidence and claim otherwise. Please stop trying to frustrate any attempt to improve things. Fri 19 Nov 2010 09:48:43 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=74#comment156 canadian + paul.Chaps, cease and desist! :-)There is NO massive conspiracy and I’m sure most sensible skeptics don't think so either, but there is (and apologies Paul there can be little debate on this fact) evidence of group think contamination- specifically with regard to the scientific process.Do i think climate scientists are evil people out to defraud the planet? -no, of course not.Do i think that they perhaps got caught up in the 'avalanche' surrounding their own theory? -perhaps.do i think they've lost objectivity? -definitely.But note, that none of these directly impact the theory itself- only the scientific integrity of those presenting it.The mains points of contention are- -climate sensitivity,-lack of real-world observational corroboration and over reliance on models-poor understanding of climate-data qualityYou'd get further discussing these rather than taking swipes at each others ideological positions. Play the ball chaps, not the man.@ jane et al re-the emails.As has already been pointed out it matters not a jot if they were stolen or leaked (though from a political viewpoint it matters greatly) only that they were released.Incidentally, i do not buy for one second that the police are still investigating the source. I know how to track an IP across the world and i have exceptionally basic IT knowledge, my brother who's in IT informs me that it should take no longer than a few days to get the relevant information (depending on the servers used and their information 'release' requirements- though legal needs usually trump privacy laws)- this of course assuming it WAS an external 'hack'. There is simply no technical reason why the 'perpetrator' has not been found and collared. There are only 3 logical explanations1- they are incompetent and cannot find the 'external' hacker.2- they have found the hacker but are under political pressure not to release the information.3- they have found that it was not an external hack (i.e. it was a leak) and are under political pressure not to release the information.There are no other options- take your pick.@ Pauli'm still reading that link, apologies it's taking me longer than i thought, i'm not naturally gifted with math so have to concentrate quite hard for it to sink in. I've found it interesting to say the least, it's answered a few of my questions but also raised a few more (typical). I'm still of the opinion that the models are flawed- but i stress i'm only half way through so that may well change as i get further in. Cheers LM Fri 19 Nov 2010 09:00:36 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=74#comment155 Back to Cancun:In an interview with the German publication, NZZ am Sonntag, German economist and joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the IPCC tells us AGW is now about redistribution of wealth (as if we didn't already know!):http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html/Mango Fri 19 Nov 2010 08:25:56 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=73#comment154 # 154. CanadianRockies wrote:"The best you can say about the anti-AGW people is that they are sincere but naive and the worst you can say about (some) of them is that they are indeed deceitful."Very revealing that you use the term "anti-AGW." Says a lot. The real term is pro-science people.Funnily enough I was thinking about collaring that term for my side of this debate. But it could lead to a long discussion for which I have no time right now. But no. The best I can say about people like our Canadian hero Steve McIntyre is that they independently showed that the data was bogus and, in doing so, showed the world that this whole thing was and is a scam.My understanding is that McIntyre's main objection is to Mann's methods rather than his data (although I believe he also disagrees with some of Mann'a data selection) I also think McIntyre is on record as saying that if he were in government he would be taking steps to address climate changeFinally, please provide one example to support your claim that what you call "anti-AGW people" are either "naive" or "deceitful."Well, naivete is evident in any op ed by people like Monkton or Delingpole or Booker or Corbyn who fail to address the genuine complexity of the science, who assume unlikely conspiracies (the underlying view of your posts of course) and who present unreviewed pseudo science as if it was self evident.As for deceit - well, I took care to emphasize it was the "worst you could say". I'd need to prove intent to satisfy you (something which obviously doesn't bother you when you attack real climate scientists, to judge from the tenor of some of your posts). However, I'm about to read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes, and I'm sure there will be some tasty examples in there. CheersPaul Fri 19 Nov 2010 05:26:39 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=73#comment153 #151. Paul Butler wrote:"But the worst thing I can say about the climate scientists is that they might have interpreted the limited palaeoclimate evidence wrongly."Tooooo funny. "The best you can say about the anti-AGW people is that they are sincere but naive and the worst you can say about (some) of them is that they are indeed deceitful."Very revealing that you use the term "anti-AGW." Says a lot. The real term is pro-science people.But no. The best I can say about people like our Canadian hero Steve McIntyre is that they independently showed that the data was bogus and, in doing so, showed the world that this whole thing was and is a scam.In the meantime, the so-called scientists who were getting paid to find anything that could support the orthodoxy were acting like blinklered sheep, more concerned about peer pressure and their careers than about real scientific enquiry. "Whatever you may say about a prediction, you can't call it a lie. You can only lie about something that is already a current fact."OK. They lied about the certainty of their predictions. And they lied by omission when they stayed silent when the media added to this. Pathetic. Finally, please provide one example to support your claim that what you call "anti-AGW people" are either "naive" or "deceitful."Here's an example of true naivete (at best): "But the worst thing I can say about the climate scientists is that they might have interpreted the limited palaeoclimate evidence wrongly."Happy Climategate Day! One year of light! Fri 19 Nov 2010 01:08:53 GMT+1 Yorkurbantree http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=72#comment152 Kambo at 127 presents a level of geographical insight that would even make Sarah Palin blush. You do realise there is a world outside Europe and north america. Even Sarah knows about the existence of Russia! My favorite bit of the post is where you admit that the American right is entirely impervious to evidence on the subject of climate change... Thu 18 Nov 2010 23:40:33 GMT+1 andrew9999 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=72#comment151 oops forgot the opening quotation marks for blunderbunnys remarks in 150Heavens someone might think I'm a Wattite. Thu 18 Nov 2010 23:33:38 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=71#comment150 #149. CanadianRockies wrote:"You look like a conspiracy theorist to me..."Sorry Paul, but that label just doesn't work anymore.It does for me ;-)And a few other people, I should addAnd, despite the title, Watts does not claim that that meeting was secret... if you read that article you would know that.Technically, no. But he still managed to use the s-wordBut why did you call it a "team"? Are you some kind of conspiracy theorist?Ah, but I put it in "scare quotes". Makes all the differenceAnd to move on to your #147 ...Sure. Go ahead. Find something that came from the 'skeptical' side that compares with the outright lies and deceptions promoted by the climate crisis industrial complex and their cheerleaders.Trouble is, this begs an awful lot of questions that can't really be answered without deconstructing the whole statement. But the worst thing I can say about the climate scientists is that they might have interpreted the limited palaeoclimate evidence wrongly. The best you can say about the anti-AGW people is that they are sincere but naive and the worst you can say about (some) of them is that they are indeed deceitful. Who lied about polar bear extinction? Disappearing islands? Three meter - or more - sea level rise? Malaria spreading due to The Warming? Whatever you may say about a prediction, you can't call it a lie. You can only lie about something that is already a current fact. Thu 18 Nov 2010 23:27:37 GMT+1 andrew9999 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=71#comment149 BlunderbunnyBeen through all of my post back to Feb this year before I got bored.I've complained about Metar weather stations back in april/may sometime and suggested that might be a cause of the GISS winter temp anomoly.I've pointed out that the MWP was a global thing(mentioned hemispheres)I've pointed out with data that last winter was not mild in the UK.But the statement, as quoted, is simply untrue."Well my apologies.What winter temperature anomaly was that, not that great fat high temperature anomaly all winter over northern Canada and Greenland you can see on the satellite data? Thu 18 Nov 2010 23:09:21 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=70#comment148 #146. Paul Butler wrote:"You look like a conspiracy theorist to me..."Sorry Paul, but that label just doesn't work anymore. And, despite the title, Watts does not claim that that meeting was secret... if you read that article you would know that.And I would hope that "the team" would be getting more "flexible" now that their 'tricks' have been exposed. But why did you call it a "team"? Are you some kind of conspiracy theorist? Thu 18 Nov 2010 23:02:15 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=70#comment147 @Wolfiewoods #113They do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Wolfie, looks like you have a fan in izeezee. Thu 18 Nov 2010 22:58:33 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=69#comment146 #144. JaneBasingstoke wrote:"Icon, yes. Alleged proof, only with the more enthusiastic non-scientist activists. Not with the mainstream scientists."OK Jane. Let's pretend that the massive propaganda campaign launched to scare the lemmings into believing in AGW was based on anything any "mainstream" scientist said - whatever you mean by "mainstream."The Hockey Stick was to the AGW Big Lie what the "mushroom cloud" was to the Iraqi WMD Big Lie. It was the simple symbol they used to sell their scam to the public.Again, the eco-crisis industrial complex operates exactly like the military-industrial complex... the use fear to enrich themselves with both money and power. Only the utterly naive do not get this.This whole thing was not based on any real science at all, just as the Iraqi WMD lie was not based on any real evidence either. And no surprise that Bliar has now joined the AGW gang. "Do you want me to hold your side to account for all your enthusiastic activists?"Sure. Go ahead. Find something that came from the 'skeptical' side that compares with the outright lies and deceptions promoted by the climate crisis industrial complex and their cheerleaders.Who lied about polar bear extinction? Disappearing islands? Three meter - or more - sea level rise? Malaria spreading due to The Warming? The list goes on. And NONE of this was accidental. Thu 18 Nov 2010 22:55:03 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=69#comment145 #145. CanadianRockies wrote:Hilarious! Sorry Paul, but we already know how they have 'homogenized' the raw data to make it conveniently useful. Madoff did the same thing. So your point may have been valid before anyone knew what was really happening, but we do know - unless you are in denial. Well, we're obviously not going to get anywhere arguing about this. You look like a conspiracy theorist to me, and I must seem like somebody who - what? - somehow wants to manipulate data so it gives a result that I don't actually want to be the case (I don't know how that works ...)I'm sure you will be thrilled to hear that Mann's gang has been trying to invent some convenient new interpretations of that - as though anybody believes anything they manufacture now.Oh that meeting. Well I knew about it before it even happened, so quite who is supposed to be keeping it secret (as Watts claims) is beyond me. Its hardly surprising that leading climate scientists are going to get together from time to time to discuss, err, climate science. Quite what is supposed to be "convenient" about any new interpretation is also beyond me. If more data comes through, interpretations will change. It looks to me as if "the team" may be a lot more flexible on this point than their critics - but they are responding to the science, not to a preconceived idea of what they would like to be the case.What "global" temperature? All we now have for that or other comparisons is just the conveniently adjusted junk data you choose to accept.Well, do you think the satellite data are also junk? Because it is basically consistent with the station measurements as interpreted at CRU and NASA over the past 40 years. Thu 18 Nov 2010 22:30:50 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=68#comment144 142. Paul Butler wrote:"Yes - if there is a "doomsday" that is how we're going to find it. If we don't homogenize the data, we won't find anything useful."Hilarious! Sorry Paul, but we already know how they have 'homogenized' the raw data to make it conveniently useful. Madoff did the same thing. So your point may have been valid before anyone knew what was really happening, but we do know - unless you are in denial. "No - there certainly was a warmer period in Europe and around the North Atlantic. The questions we want to answer are (a) whether it was in fact warmer then than it is now and (b) whether it happened at the same time around the world."Really. I'm sure you will be thrilled to hear that Mann's gang has been trying to invent some convenient new interpretations of that - as though anybody believes anything they manufacture now.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/22/mike-manns-secret-meeting-on-the-medieval-warm-period/But you do, indirectly, raise an important point. What "global" temperature? All we now have for that or other comparisons is just the conveniently adjusted junk data you choose to accept.You don't believe all government statistics, do you? Thu 18 Nov 2010 22:02:48 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=68#comment143 @CanadianRockies #138Icon, yes. Alleged proof, only with the more enthusiastic non-scientist activists. Not with the mainstream scientists.You did spot the date on that Mann link, didn't you. 2004. Mann wasn't pushing Hockey Sticks as the definitive proof, he was doing the opposite.Do you want me to hold your side to account for all your enthusiastic activists? Thu 18 Nov 2010 21:43:01 GMT+1 andrew9999 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=67#comment142 David,A bit more of a reply to your question, none of the world record temperatures that you quote were in the same year so they don't represent a global event.Individual high temperatures will always crop up the important question is do they represent a global phenomena. I think the reason why people are taking note of this year is because so many countries are breaking records.Individually they don't mean anything.Even if say next year the highest temperature is recorded on its own it doesn't mean anything. Thu 18 Nov 2010 21:15:01 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=67#comment141 #140. CanadianRockies wrote:If you want to find doomsday you need to use the data "adjusted" by the climate crisis industry, not any actual measurements.Yes - if there is a "doomsday" that is how we're going to find it. If we don't homogenize the data, we won't find anything useful.And please ignore all that history actually recorded about the climate or you might accidentally think that the Medieval Warm Period (etc.) happened - which puts an inconvenient warp in the Holy Hockey Stick.No - there certainly was a warmer period in Europe and around the North Atlantic. The questions we want to answer are (a) whether it was in fact warmer then than it is now and (b) whether it happened at the same time around the world Thu 18 Nov 2010 21:13:03 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=66#comment140 #136. david wrote:To Paul Butler at #135 - I did mention the source at the beginning of my message - its called infoplease.comI have also seen the same list on the Met Office website.Sorry, yes you did, I just didn't read it properly :-(However, I still have the same problem, since infoplease doesn't give its sources.So when I separately looked for the record for Australia, I found this page on the WMO site:http://wmo.asu.edu/australia-highest-temperaturewhere it gives the record as 50.7 in 1960 and adds thisAlthough Cloncurry, Queensland, Australia recorded a temperature of 53.3°C (128°F) on 16/1/1889, it was made using a nonstandard temperature screen. Consequently, the Oodnadatta recording is the high temperature extreme.So when we are talking about these extremes, we need to be certain that we are comparing like with like. The further back we go, the more difficult it becomes to adjust the data properly so they are comparable with modern data.That doesn't mean your records aren't correct. These records, whether they are for continents or for countries, are symptomatic; the important figures are the global averages, which certainly are rising and have been for 100 years or more. Thu 18 Nov 2010 21:05:24 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=66#comment139 #132. david wrote:"Perhaps the 'warmists' on this blog would care to explain why not one - NOT ONE - of the above, has occurred in the last thirty years, when we have been allegedly hurtling towards Armageddon due to all the 'man made' CO2 emissions..."If you want to find doomsday you need to use the data "adjusted" by the climate crisis industry, not any actual measurements.And please ignore all that history actually recorded about the climate or you might accidentally think that the Medieval Warm Period (etc.) happened - which puts an inconvenient warp in the Holy Hockey Stick. Thu 18 Nov 2010 20:28:14 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=66#comment138 133. bowmanthebard wrote:"As long as they are genuine, the origin of emails is wholly irrelevant to their content. This is true of any hacked or stolen or leaked emails/documents, whichever illicit practices they reveal, from torture to resisting requests for information."Agree. Note that the same people moaning about the revelation of these emails don't seem to be screaming about Wikileaks - presumably because they like what the latter leaked. Thu 18 Nov 2010 20:12:53 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=65#comment137 123. JaneBasingstoke wrote:"OK. We need to be clear. Hockey Sticks are not part of the core case on AGW..."Well Jane, you have hit a new level of absurdity with this comment. The fake Mann-made hockey stick was the central icon and the alleged graphic 'proof' of The Warming that was used to sell this Big Lie to the public. Your comment just parrots the spinning apologists."And you may be confusing Jones and Mann with activists like Gore."What's the difference? All three are ideological zealots who have deliberately deceived the public for their own gain. The only difference is that Jones and Mann were masquerading as "scientists" while Gore was playing false Watermelon messiah.(And let's not forget Hansen, another blatantly obvious zealot pretending to be a scientist.)All three are now jokes who will go down in history in the same category as Madoff and Bliar. For Gore, a sleazy used planet salesman/politician, this simply confirms what the public always knew about such types. But the zealots masquerading as scientists have done much more damage to the credibility of real science. Until these charlatans are properly dealt with, this damage will continue. Thu 18 Nov 2010 20:09:55 GMT+1 andrew9999 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=65#comment136 David.The temperatures that are on Weather Underground come from the WMO you can also see them on NOAA/NCDC State of the Climate report for the respective month. The point is they are the records for the particular countries. Israel is probably classed as the Middle East not Asia so they don't contradict so what exactly is the problem?Not everywhere in the world has had record high temperatures some have been cooler. But these are record high temperatures in a globally very (record) hot year. Thu 18 Nov 2010 20:04:15 GMT+1 david http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=64#comment135 To Paul Butler at #135 - I did mention the source at the beginning of my message - its called infoplease.comI have also seen the same list on the Met Office website. Thu 18 Nov 2010 18:36:40 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=64#comment134 #132. david wrote:Perhaps the 'warmists' on this blog would care to explain why not one - NOT ONE - of the above, has occurred in the last thirty years, when we have been allegedly hurtling towards Armageddon due to all the 'man made' CO2 emissions...David, it would help if you could give us a source for this infomation Thu 18 Nov 2010 17:52:13 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=63#comment133 #131. Toraborata wrote:I'm no scientist but here's what common sense tells me about positive feedback and runaway climate change - it cant be true. Either the scientists have just got things wrong or there are other factors not being taken into account, otherwise this planet would now be a ball of ice or a desert world.No it doesn't work quite like that. For example, during the glacial cycles there are two equilibrium states - the interglacials which is what we're in now, and the glacial state when large areas of the Northern Hemisphere are covered with thick ice caps. Feedback processes are what moves us between those states. The feedbacks stop because at certain levels of (say) temperature the negative (or stabilizing) feedbacks balance the positive (or amplifying) feedbacksAnd here's an interesting piece about how feedbacks work in the human body Thu 18 Nov 2010 17:45:41 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=63#comment132 As long as they are genuine, the origin of emails is wholly irrelevant to their content. This is true of any hacked or stolen or leaked emails/documents, whichever illicit practices they reveal, from torture to resisting requests for information. Thu 18 Nov 2010 17:40:01 GMT+1 david http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=62#comment131 Worth repeating the following from the infoplease website in the 'yes it was'/'no it wasn't' arguments over record temperatures - particularly for andrew9999 (posting #31) and his assertion that the highest ever temperature recorded in Asia was in Pakistan - 'a staggering 53.5C'...HIGHEST TEMPERATURES WORLDWIDEWorld Libya 1922 58CN America Death Valley 1913 57CAsia Israel 1942 54CAustralia Queensland 1889 53CEurope Spain 1881 50CS America Argentina 1905 49CCanada Saskatchewan 1937 45COceania Philippines 1912 42CAntarctica Vanda Station 1974 15CThese are, of course, the highest RECORDED temperatures - I'm sure that higher temperatures have occurred throughout history, before reliable records began..Perhaps the 'warmists' on this blog would care to explain why not one - NOT ONE - of the above, has occurred in the last thirty years, when we have been allegedly hurtling towards Armageddon due to all the 'man made' CO2 emissions... Thu 18 Nov 2010 17:34:57 GMT+1 Toraborata http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=62#comment130 I'm no scientist but here's what common sense tells me about positive feedback and runaway climate change - it cant be true. Either the scientists have just got things wrong or there are other factors not being taken into account, otherwise this planet would now be a ball of ice or a desert world. Thu 18 Nov 2010 17:11:09 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=61#comment129 #124. Kamboshigh wrote:PaulNice try on the papers on models/feedbacks from the team, you might find the written testimony by Dr.Richard Lindzen of yesterday to the US Congress rather interesting.But I know Lindzen takes a different view from the mainstream IPCC view. And I'll try at some point to find the time to go through the arguments in detail.I'm not knocking Lindzen in the way some people do, I'm sure he's a very intelligent climate scientist who is sincere in his views. But he's in a minority of 3 or 4 who think sensitivity is lower than IPCC. And there are probably 3 or 4 who think it is higher (Rahmstorf for example).What I won't do is accept a minority view just because I don't like the implications of the majority view. Rest assured that if climate sensitivity is shown through multiple strands of evidence to be lower than currently accepted, I'll accept the changed consensus. In fact I hope your view is correct, since it will give us more time to deal with the consequences of increasing greenhouse gas emissions Cheers, Paul Thu 18 Nov 2010 17:05:02 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=61#comment128 @mangochutneyukok #6 #91@Barry Woods #20@LabMunkey #40 #47@quake #42@rossglory #44 #120@jasonsceptic #51Stole/Hacked versus LeakedFrom David Adam's Nature article "The hottest year""More certain is the conclusion that the hack of the server was a sophisticated attack. Although the police and the university say only that the investigation is continuing, Nature understands that evidence has emerged effectively ruling out a leak from inside the CRU, as some have claimed. And other climate-research organizations are believed to have told police that their systems survived hack attempts at the same time."http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101115/full/468362a.htmlOh, and please not the Paul Hudson myth again. Hudson was on the original legitimate distribution of some of the hacked/leaked emails, and was trying to vouch for them being genuine. His first attempt to explain this was ambiguous. The second clearer.ambiguous wordinghttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtmlclearer wordinghttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml Thu 18 Nov 2010 16:50:57 GMT+1 Tim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=60#comment127 There's a lot of hostility towards the very notion of anthropogenic climate change and I can see lots of ugly rhetoric flung about; Ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments and bizarre reversals of blame. The one that gets me is that there is some vast conspiracy of evil climate change scientists trying to destroy your way of life. Why would they hatch this dastardly plot? Ah yes, to secure more grant money! Of course, such vast sums would corrupt any scientist. This is, of course, utter nonsense. If you want to see the real vested interests then follow the real money. Many organisations have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and it would make (financial) sense for these people to resist renewable energy, electric cars, greater efficiency or anything else that would result in fewer people buying their products. Of course these people will routinely rubbish any efforts to improve things. This is deplorable and short sighted but understandable, if you're a corporate shill.If the conclusions of so many climate scientists are correct then the cost of doing nothing and continuing as we are will be enormous. On the other hand, there are many benefits to cleaning up our act, even if AGW isn't as serious as many of us think it is.So, why all the hostility and disingenuous rhetoric? Are you guys being paid to do this? Thu 18 Nov 2010 16:44:16 GMT+1 Kamboshigh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=60#comment126 As for the actual topic of the blog.Simply don't bother the world cannot afford it, the whole theory is now discredited to such an extent that no politician will sign up to it. It is not going to pass muster in Canada and after the US elections the US will not put pen to paper even if all ice disappeared. That only leaves the Undemocratic Republic of the EU, which you guys are mostly stuck with and I can jump ship on. But hey what's the problem with no electricity or £800 bills when the temperature outside is minus 10, you could even burn all those green living guides. Thu 18 Nov 2010 16:36:46 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=59#comment125 @CanadianRockies #110Yes, saw that."email deletion"'Fraid that looks like a quote mine to me. Jones explicitly says that he did not delete emails that were the subject of FOI requests, and explicitly says that he did not base his email management on the possibility of frustrating future FOI requests."Chinese weather stations"It really wouldn't hurt to issue some sort of formal clarification that could be checked in its own right."fear the hackers may be sitting on more stolen e-mails"Given the number of misinterpretations of the emails (the likes of Sarah Palin not realising "hide the decline" was about tree ring temperature proxies) and the ensuing nastiness (the police have investigated death threats against Jones), yes I can understand Jones's nervousness."serious offences"Eschenbach seems happy that Jones hasn't committed full scale scientific fraud (which is probably what the Nature journalist meant by "serious offences"), but is upset over the FOI problems. FOI offences can be described as serious, although not in the same league as actual fraud.There were mitigating circumstances with the FOI stuff, including Jones's tiny department needing help with FOI paperwork well before the 58 submissions in July 2009.Mitigating for Jones, that is. His superiors let him down in not realising the way Jones's work was now politically hot and supplying help with the resulting extra FOI paperwork."Lying by omission" [about the "timeline" only visible in the .pdf]"Lying by omission" is way strong. Stuff can get left out of an article if a journalist doesn't know about it, and it is only part of the background to the article. The "timeline" (A Career By Degrees) is only visible in the .pdf, and it looks like it has been kept deliberately short for clarity."Harry_Read_Me" [again]Oh, and Harry_Read_Me wasn't about Jones's temperature set work. It was a separate database covering a wide range of different weather stats. You can see references to some non-temperature stats (e.g. "precipitation") in Harry_Read_Me. You can also see references to the multiple weather stats database CRU TS versions 2.1 and 3.0 in Harry_Read_MeHarry_Read_Me itselfhttp://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txtHadCRUT, CRUTEM, and others, temperature data sets with just temperaturehttp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/CRU TS 2.1 and 3.0, includes cloud cover, frost days, precipitation, some temperature details, vapour pressure and wet days.http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg/ Thu 18 Nov 2010 16:35:00 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=59#comment124 #121 blunderbunny wrote:With regard to reticent/reluctant, I was definitely going for "disposed to be silent or not to speak freely", rather than reluctant “unwilling; disinclined”, as I was talking about having discussions and I was going for the whole implied guilt thing.Perhaps its my age, but we used to say "reticent about" whatever subject or "reluctant to" do something. So whenever I see "reticent to" do something (which people do quite a lot these days) it looks wrong. But I do see your point about the difference between them.Does anybody else have any thoughts on that, or is it just me being pedantic? Thu 18 Nov 2010 16:28:42 GMT+1 Kamboshigh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=58#comment123 #120 Ross, having experience, if it took me a year or more to come up with an answer to who stole/hacked some pieces of paper from from a server, then my Inspector would have had me issuing parking tickets down the High Street. The IP trace at the time lead straight to an FTP server in Norfolk. The fact the police have said nothing speaks volumes. However, it has been very useful for UEA who have been able to hide behind the fact of police involvement to prevent any other emails been released under FOI or viewed by the whitewash Muir Rusell enquiry.PaulNice try on the papers on models/feedbacks from the team, you might find the written testimony by Dr.Richard Lindzen of yesterday to the US Congress rather interesting.Unfortunately, it is PDF format but can be found at ClimateDepot item 7, written so that politicians can understand it is something to read. Thu 18 Nov 2010 16:27:01 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=58#comment122 @CanadianRockies #108"But to suggest that he "was always a comparatively minor player in climate science" is patently false. He and his co-conspirators (like his buddy Mann) were at the core of this deception, and they did it very deliberately.""like his buddy Mann", "at the core of this deception"OK. We need to be clear. Hockey Sticks are not part of the core case on AGW. Hockey Sticks are a comparatively young science involving an ongoing search for more and better temperature proxies.Hockey sticks were too "tidy" in TAR, and taken out of context this would have mislead, but since then they have been cut down to size by the mainstream scientists. And you may be confusing Jones and Mann with activists like Gore. Here's Mann on Hockey Sticks. Note the original date of this post. Note the fact that it is still current."MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth. This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth’s surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this conclusion is the evidence from so-called “Detection and Attribution Studies”. Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)."http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/ Thu 18 Nov 2010 16:26:30 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=57#comment121 #121. blunderbunny wrote:Thanks for those papers, Paul.But, if we’re talking water vapour and the troposphere, I can quickly counter with this one:Platridge et al 2009, "Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data"Only based on direct measurement don't'cha'know (the cheek of it – actually measuring stuff) ;-)Fair enough, although I think the papers I referenced also do measurements. All you asked for in your post was evidence from observation for positive feedbacks, which I provided.Now in the paper you cite, I got as far as the second sentence in the abstract, which says this: It is accepted that radiosonde-derived humidity data must be treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPapressure level.Now I might be allowed to accept the balance of multiple lines of evidence, even if they all suffer from uncertainties. After all, I accept the scientific consensus on climate change as summarized in IPCC. But you've already said that those uncertainties are a major reason why you don't accept that consensus.So - be honest - you can't with any consistency accept the claims of a paper which stresses in the 2nd sentence of its abstract that its conclusions should be treated with great caution.Still at least he's honest about it!I'll try to find time to respond to your other points shortlyCheersPaul Thu 18 Nov 2010 15:28:30 GMT+1 blunderbunny http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=57#comment120 Thanks for those papers, Paul.But, if we’re talking water vapour and the troposphere, I can quickly counter with this one:Platridge et al 2009, "Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data"Only based on direct measurement don't'cha'know (the cheek of it – actually measuring stuff) ;-)With regard to reticent/reluctant, I was definitely going for "disposed to be silent or not to speak freely", rather than reluctant “unwilling; disinclined”, as I was talking about having discussions and I was going for the whole implied guilt thing.But, both words convey a realtively similar meanings, so hey, take your pick - not something you should say in a room full of shovels ;-) And,"Is that not enough for you?"Ehh – Nope - Models and inferred measurements vs Actual ones, sorry mate, but you'll need to try a little harder than that. Any news on a Tropospheric Hotspot by the way?Regards,One of the Lobby Thu 18 Nov 2010 15:00:55 GMT+1 rossglory http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=56#comment119 #91 mangochutneythat is a different point in that it has nothing to do with convictions. however the uea actually said about the loss of emails:"We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this inquiry."so they certainly thought they were stolen and it was not a leak. Thu 18 Nov 2010 14:55:23 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=56#comment118 #111. oldterry2 wrote:Ah the 'magic' feedback. why 'magic'; because the feedback that is needed has to violate some of the basic rules of feedback loops: you need to find a source for the extra energy; The extra energy is the extra downward radiation due to the extra greenhouse gases you have to explain why the feedback loop only applies to the extra CO2 and not to the already existing normal levels of CO2 and other greenhouse causes. Because the background level is an equilibrium level during interglacials. The problem lies in increasing one side of the loop at a rate which is certainly unprecedented in the period during which the planet has been subject to glacial cycles. Thu 18 Nov 2010 14:14:48 GMT+1 Paul Butler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=55#comment117 #116. blunderbunny wrote:I too want to see some evidence for these 'simple' positive feedbacksYou could try this paper:Soden et al, 2006, ScienceThe Radiative Signature of Upper Tropospheric MoisteningAbstract: Climate models predict that the concentration of water vapor in the upper troposphere could double by the end of the century as a result of increases in greenhouse gases. Such moistening plays a key role in amplifying the rate at which the climate warms in response to anthropogenic activities, but has been difficult to detect because of deficiencies in conventional observing systems. We use satellite measurements to highlight a distinct radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening over the period 1982 to 2004. The observed moistening is accurately captured by climate model simulations and lends further credence to model projections of future global warming.or this:Santer et al 2007 Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture contentAbstract: Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content overoceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. Resultsfrom current climate models indicate that water vapor increases ofthis magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In aformal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled resultsfrom 22 different climate models, the simulated ‘‘fingerprint’’pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor isidentifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data.Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggestthat this fingerprint ‘‘match’’ is primarily due to humancausedincreases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing orrecovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findingsprovide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signalin the moisture content of earth’s atmosphere.#116. blunderbunny also wrote:..... and I also want to see some acknowledgement of uncertainties - They seem happy enough to bury them in the deep dark bowels of documents that they aren't expecting anyone to read, but oddly reticent to acknowledge their existence in public discussions.I think you mean "reluctant" here, by the wayIts difficult to know what you expect them to do here. As I'm sure you are aware the public can very easily turn off if a discussion gets too "sciencey". But let's take as an example the Royal Society document that got discussed upthread. If you search for the string "uncertaint", you get 22 results in 19 pages. And the previous RS effort, also with 19 pages, had 17 results for the same string.Is that not enough for you? Thu 18 Nov 2010 14:08:07 GMT+1 JunkkMale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=55#comment116 112. At 10:53am on 18 Nov 2010, Spanglerboy wrote:I note that there has been only one response to Richards latest post. Seems not many are interested in tuna and French people. I know I amn'tThe case for an ongoing open thread therefore gets suggested.Especially in light of the following I have just had in by way of response to a complaint that I was denied the opportunity to comment on a thread that closed almost as soon as it opened, and certainly before I was in a position at home to engage:'Thanks for getting in touch. The post you link to had a high incidence of off-topic comment underneath and so was closed. Posts where comments remain within the house rules stay open to comments for longer.'Far from finding this an adequate explanation, I was appalled at the inadequacy of the excuse, especially as it impacts on the moderating system as whole, and the duty to posters who can and do comment per (albeit moving goalpost and often selectively-interpreted) 'rules'.This seems to be carte blanche to shut down at any time for any reason, or by getting some to provide one if necessary. And also serves the interests of those who pick the topic over the wealth of others that could and should be open for discussion if the interest is there. Thu 18 Nov 2010 13:05:57 GMT+1 blunderbunny http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=55#comment115 @oldterry2 #111Yep, I echo the sentiments of my fellow Lobby "Lurkers" (Vestibulians) -Excellent post. I too want to see some evidence for these 'simple' positive feedbacks and I also want to see some acknowledgement of uncertainties - They seem happy enough to bury them in the deep dark bowels of documents that they aren't expecting anyone to read, but oddly reticent to acknowledge their existence in public discussions.Regards,One of the (we’re officially going to build an extension) Lobby Thu 18 Nov 2010 12:18:21 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=54#comment114 @111 oldterry "'There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding'; which is science-speak for 'there is an awful lot we do not know about the climate'. "and" you have to explain why the feedback loop only applies to the extra CO2 and not to the already existing normal levels of CO2 and other greenhouse causes. "These are some of the large sticking points for me too. excellent post.@wolfie#113"I do have another presence here but it is not “izeezee”."why would you post under more than one name??? what do you hope to achieve by this?? Thu 18 Nov 2010 11:35:42 GMT+1 JunkkMale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=54#comment113 105. At 10:00pm on 17 Nov 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:Brunnen @11: “One of the (increasingly crowded) Lobby.”Must be a very small lobby then! A quick scan down the comments reveals around a dozen people who share your views. The BBC website is the most popular one in the UK and yet there are never more than a handful of climate 'sceptics' in evidence. Given that your lot keep explaining how many sceptics there are who feel passionately that the mainstream science is wrong, it does beg the question as to where they are all hiding?!The world of statistics, darn statistics and polls is an interesting one. Seems, at best, a dark art over a science, and I don't pretend to often understand the methodologies. It seems often to depend very much on what is the desired result of those invoking them.But audience samples, what they represent and indeed how representative they are can always intrigue.For instance, might it be accurate to wonder if whatever happens within a medium might in some way be influenced by what that medium produces, as both fact or opinion?Then one gets to the numbers.It's nice to see this thread get to over a hundred as a sample upon which to base such projections before watertight oversight or closing time shutters come down.However, as of of the few avenues of conversation from a predominantly broadcast only body of work in the arena of environmental issues (Ethical Man now no longer in that role, it seems, and others hard to find even when typing 'Environment' or 'Green' into the search panel), the representative nature of the participating, interested audience (those merely observing one presumes to be known, if only to the site owners) seems quite low in totality, working through those who have internet access (and time) up through to the potential national numbers and, of course, beyond to worldwide. Millions at least.A few score seems, low, considering. But perhaps the heft of the composition is deemed to be in the passion or regularity of views held and made? I fear I am unable to really assess the quality of commentary, as a person telling me they know better, and/or are qualified to do so, on a blog means little.And when comparing relative numbers 'pro' or 'con' a view, there are surely many other factors. A 'pro' or 'con' recommendation or 'report' on a Telegraph Delingpole or a Guardian Monbiot CiF are pretty meaningless, being at best reflective of the overall voluntary (versus contrarian) readership, or at worst down to the 'commitment' of small minorities with access to multiple ISP sources if so moved. Plus, of course, the results can be skewed when passions do spin up a notch. I dip in here rarely and only comment (more on matters of tribal excess, as the topics seem well addressed already by many who feel they are well able to speak for others with various 'ist/'inger/'zi''you lot presumptions based on remarkable insight as to what lies behind a blog nickname, too much more than qualities of actual argument) when especially troubled by retrograde concepts to free speech being articulated. It's much better now, but I do recall a descent not so long ago into 'blocs' who would call for censure simply for holding alternative views, and even, on occasion, imprisonment. Such intolerance can also influence a blog composition... one way, or another. And hence skew those numbers even before they get 'interpreted'.Just ask Ed. Miliband, who, when in power, was quite forceful in terminology designed to promote certain views, often backed by considerable funding in support, whilst seeking to crush any that might have not been so complementary, or even complimentary.Yet despite all this, he often found himself surprised to be not speaking for quite the majority he claimed (as with the Science Museum initiative that proved inconvenient to his narrative and those he had onside to push it).Which is pretty key as, ultimately, it is how the entirety of the public actually votes, with crosses on ballots, feet and/or actions, that truly matters for the future of this planet and our heirs' lives upon it.And if we are at the point we are now with public awareness and opinion, I am not sure the message of many often self-selecting messengers is getting through in the form they are still trying to shove it, presuming its basis to be accurate and sincere.So telling folk they are ill-informed, and/or wrong, and/or need to change, and/or deserve no voice, strikes me to be a proven flawed strategy. Possibly in need of change?If seeking to persuade, and inspire, I'd see more merit in being open to debate and persuade with the power of argument, as opposed to reaching for the tribal rallying cries or mods' ripcord the instant things look like slipping away. Plus avoiding swords with more than one edge. Thu 18 Nov 2010 11:31:42 GMT+1 Wolfiewoods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=53#comment112 JaneBasingstoke @#89 said “Plus of course the way that izeezee seems to have rendered CanadianRockies as "CD" (rather than "CR") in #23 and #30. What's that about? Is he imitating Trig (another John Sullivan character, who addressed Rodney Trotter as "Dave").”Jane, sometimes you do get warm but sometimes you read too much into things, I do have another presence here but it is not “izeezee”.I still post here, I do like to “get some in”. Thu 18 Nov 2010 10:58:54 GMT+1 Spanglerboy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=53#comment111 oldterry # 111good postI would be interested to know if there is an answer to your point about thhe magicness of the alleged positive feedback. I would guess that what happens in reality is that the cliamte reaches a new level of equilibrium (even tho it is apparently never really in equilibrium) but why does the positive feedback not keep looping ever onwards and upwards. Indeed given that the climate is subject to variations in forcings all the time why is it that (other than the odd ice age and even they dont last forever) the earth seems to enjoy a relatively stable climate? If anyone knows will they please share with usI note that there has been only one response to Richards latest post. Seems not many are interested in tuna and French people. I know I amn't Thu 18 Nov 2010 10:53:20 GMT+1 oldterry2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=52#comment110 in 41. Bryn_hill wrote:" Likewise, there are simple positive feedbacks which amplify the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. " ummm no, their are lots of claims of positive feedbacks (which are incorporated into models) but no real hard evidence. It is also worth pointing out that the calculations leading to a 0.3 to 0.4C temperature rise from recent CO2's 1.6W/sq m are such that it is a net temperature rise that is calculated ie inclusive of all the feedback effects that are occuring in the 150W/sq m of normal (pre-industrial) warming." And paragraph 36 says '... the overall climate sensitivity (for a hypothetical doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is likely to lie in the range 2oC to 4.5oC; this range is mainly due to the difficulties in simulating the overall effect of the response of clouds to climate change mentioned earlier.' So why didn't you include this bit Terry?" because para29 says 'the climate sensitivity would be around 1oC, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations.' and that is based on real info not speculation like para 36 - and I've also read para 47, see later. However going back to your para 36 - it says earlier 'Increases in water vapour alone, in response to warming, are estimated to approximately double the climate sensitivity from its value in the absence of amplifying processes'. Now that might be true (but seems high), but is neglecting the corresponding change in cloud cover. Now even the IPCC report included the info that the effect of cloud cover gave a negative effect which was 7 times the positive effect from water vapour itself. "Now my guess, Terry, is that you'll tell me how little regard you have for climate models and predictions." Quite true - but then I spent many years working on computer models of physical systems and know just how sensitive they are to the assumptions of physical process that are included in them. It is surprising how much things can change when better base measurements can be fed into them; the problem is that many of the base measurements needed for the current climate models are just estimates (science-speak for best guess)."It's what we usually get next - but this makes no sense. Modelling is used in science because it is useful and successful in representing the real world."Sorry, but that just shows you haven't ever been involved in trying to model science. Your statement could be true if we were talking about engineering but that isn't the case." In fact we have two predicitons. You predict little change in the global energy balance due to human activity, the atmospheric scientists predict significantly more." no I was specifically talking about CO2; I didn't say anything about more general human activity, which could also have an effect." Thus, since we have added a load of CO2 to the atmosphere you have to provide a plausible model to exlain why that will not lead to positive feedbacks through water vapour (among other effects)."Ah the 'magic' feedback. why 'magic'; because the feedback that is needed has to violate some of the basic rules of feedback loops: you need to find a source for the extra energy; you have to explain why the feedback loop isn't running away but somehow only manages to hit a limit at just the AGW expected temperature rise; you have to explain why the feedback loop only applies to the extra CO2 and not to the already existing normal levels of CO2 and other greenhouse causes. Finally I would like to draw your attention to para 47, ' As noted above, projections of climate change are sensitive to the details of the representation of clouds in models. Particles originating from both human activities and natural sources have the potential to strongly influence the properties of clouds, with consequences for estimates of climate forcing. Current scientific understanding of this effect is poor.' Which is science-speak for 'we have no idea how to model cloud effects properly but they are v. important'. You might also note the all embracing get out in para 56 'There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding'; which is science-speak for 'there is an awful lot we do not know about the climate'. Thu 18 Nov 2010 00:30:31 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html?page=52#comment109 #106 JaneIn case you have not already seen this, more on Jones. With some interesting comments.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/16/the-jones-rehabilitation/Poor Pinnochio... Wed 17 Nov 2010 23:51:10 GMT+1