What global warming?

[StephenW]

Speaking of "follow the money".....

(from El Reg)

"Oops: Chief Climategate investigator failed to declare eco directorship
'Dracula's in charge of the blood bank' "

"The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world, according to Companies House documents - and has failed to declare it."


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/24/climategate_oxburgh_globe/

 

[quikshop]

Speaking of "follow the money".....

(from El Reg)

"Oops: Chief Climategate investigator failed to declare eco directorship
'Dracula's in charge of the blood bank' "

"The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world, according to Companies House documents - and has failed to declare it."


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/24/climategate_oxburgh_globe/

Priceless

"Follow the money" is absolutely what is going on here, and it's a crying shame.

There are genuine issues, no doubt some very serious ones pending because of climate change but all that observers with open eyes can see are Governments and private industry using the issue as a cash cow.

We are no nearer having a grown up debate about how much our species is affecting natural climate change.

BTW the next moronic ignorant fool to say "we are causing climate change" should be exported to a small island off the coast of nowhere and left to rot

 

[cjd]

P
BTW the next moronic ignorant fool to say "we are causing climate change" should be exported to a small island off the coast of nowhere and left to rot

You must be a pretty smart guy to know more than the scientific community.

"There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming"

On the off chance your interested in what the science actually says, it's here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html

 

[quikshop]

You must be a pretty smart guy to know more than the scientific community.

I would have thought a smart fella like yourself would understand the difference between causing climate change and contributing to natural climate change, a process that is as persistent as the gravitational pull of the moon on our oceans.

Or are you suggesting the global warming and subsequent ice ages that preceeded the explosive growth of our species was down to dinosaurs emitting too much CO2 from their heated terraced homes... and do you have any Government sponsored scientific papers to prove this

 

[cjd]

I would have thought a smart fella like yourself would understand the difference between causing climate change and contributing to natural climate change, a process that is as persistent as the gravitational pull of the moon on our oceans.

O please move on, we all know that the issue is about how much people are contributing to climate change and whether it matters or not.

The science tells us that we very probably are and that it very likely does.

 

[quikshop]

O please move on, we all know that the issue is about how much people are contributing to climate change and whether it matters or not.

The science tells us that we very probably are and that it very likely does.

You make a judgement on probably and likely?

There is no definitive answer yet because a significant amount of the data used in published 'scientific' papers has been proven to be inaccurate at best, and a down right lie in the worst cases.

Simple things like not taking into account the growth of ubanisation across the World which have directly affected readings from a not insignificant number of climate monitoring stations dotted around the sub-continent and Asia.

Or, random climate statements which have not been pier-reviewed used as 'absolute evidence' by Government scientists in global forums.

 

[cjd]

You make a judgement on probably and likely?

I don't make a judgement - that's what the science says. I do not have an opinion and am not entitled to one.

 

[quikshop]

I don't make a judgement - that's what the science says. I do not have an opinion and am not entitled to one.

The science is not accurate as have been proved over the last few weeks. The so called evidence has been found to be in parts shamelessly dishonest, not pier-reviewed, bogus or cobbled together to present a particular argument without debate or analysis.

Its comparable to the telecommunication industry-sponsored 'scientific' reports stating the mobile phones pose no health risk that are always without fail released just days after any unadulturated scientific report is published claiming health risks relating to the use of mobile phones.

As you know from the God debate, I will defend science and the application of it but like the religious debate, everything is coloured by vested interests.

 

[Dawg]

I don't make a judgement - that's what the science says. I do not have an opinion and am not entitled to one.

'ow fery fery 'umble. Not to 'ave an h'opinion.
Now, I'm h'off to the cobblers.

(Note to self: send forelock tugging brochure to Duffyfone Mansions.)

 

[cjd]

What's your opinion of Quantum Mechanics?

 

[Cornish Steve]

I don't make a judgement.... I do not have an opinion and am not entitled to one.

Please excuse me while I fall off my chair laughing.

 

[cjd]

excused........

 

[Cornish Steve]

It seems the Germans are no longer so warm about global warming.

 

[Dawg]

Interesting little fact about food/carbon miles, (the carbon footprint of foodstuff logged up because it is brought in from around the world):

The carbon footprint of potatoes is affected more by whether you cook them in a pot with or without the lid on, than anywhere they come from in the world.

(Interesting but not particularly useful: I think freshly picked spuds from a Farmers market are one of the few things worth getting there. There is an amazing taste difference.)

 

[cjd]

(Interesting but not particularly useful: I think freshly picked spuds from a Farmers market are one of the few things worth getting there. There is an amazing taste difference.)

Even better if you grow them in your back garden.

Just planted (yesterday) a spud with the gorgeous name of "International Kidney". When grown on the Island and tax haven of Jersey they become "Jersey Royals". That's marketing for you.

 

[Dawg]

I'm sure you could call them Brighton Knowalls..

 

[cjd]

or the Dogs Bollox

 

[Dawg]

Ooh er. That was good. A dog joke. Nearly as good as a Creutzfield-Jacob joke, eh Duffo?

Dog jokes; good for terminal torpor.

 

[cjd]

I think so - yes; maybe a bit better.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Don't let your spuds marry a news presenter: Wouldn't want your prize spud to marry any old common tator.

 

[cjd]

bloody hell

 

[Cornish Steve]

And now it's NASA's turn to admit that their climate data is almost useless. The entire fabricated house of cards is beginning to fall - and Al Gore's hope to become the world's first green billionaire are dwindling fast.

 

[LicensedToTrade]

Been having a bit of a debate (argument) with the missus over the correct pronounciation of NASA (Yes, we do need to get out more).

I argued that it was pronounced as 'NASSA' where as she believes it is pronounced 'NAYSA'. Please do an old fool a favour and give me an unbiased answer (preferably swinging towards my answer).

 

[StephenW]

Re above post: I have only ever heard it pronounced NAS-SA


Re: "Results of the Climategate Parliamentary Inquiry in the UK"

Report is on Watts Up With That website

Worth a quick read of the extract and comments:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/30/results-of-the-climategate-paliamentary-inquiry-in-the-uk/

 

[Dawg]

If you think a creche is something that happens on the M6 it will be NAYSA, otherwise NASSA.

 

[cjd]

So the the Commons Science and Technology Committee investigating UEAs 'Clamategate' found

... no evidence Professor Phil Jones, whose e-mails were hacked and published online, had manipulated data. It said his reputation, and that of his climate research unit, remained intact........We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity

Just human cock-up by 3 hassled scientists with no back-up from their Uni.

Of course, the conspiracy theorists aren't happy (and never will be)

Climate sceptics on the sceptic website Bishop Hill ridiculed the MPs' findings. One asked: "Is it April fools already?" Another commented: "No-one with half [a] brain cell will view this conclusion as anything other than a hasty and not very subtle establishment cover-up."

Have to wait now to see what the other investigations reveal, if anything.

 

[nextdayprint]

The ice formations at both polar caps are heavily instrumental in powering global current streams -they work like giant pumps. Many of these have not formed, or have formed to a limited extent, over recent years, and as such The Gulf Stream is reducing in strength. This in turn is causing lower temperatures in the UK during the winter where The Gulf Stream provides about 50% of our "warmth".... or something like that

 

[Dawg]

Ahh but you (Potatoboy cjd) would Christine Keeler/say that wouldn't you? Other selective quotes...

MPs investigating the climate change row at the UK's University of East Anglia (UEA) have demanded greater transparency from climate scientists.

and

the MPs concluded, the UEA appeared to support a culture of "resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics".
The committee chairman, Phil Willis, described this as "reprehensible".

and

The MPs have urged the Information Commissioner's Office to make a formal ruling as to whether the university's failure to disclose information was a breach of the law.

all because:

The committee expressed regret that its inquiry had been cut short because of the end of the Parliamentary term.

and because:

But it found no evidence Professor Phil Jones, whose e-mails were hacked and published online, had manipulated data

(my bold)
and also:

One dissenting member of the committee, Labour MP Graham Stringer, said he was unhappy that neither of the independent reviews had a climate sceptic member.

"There should be a reputable scientist on the panel [who is] sceptical about man-made global warming," he said.

"If we are trying to establish credibility this would be preferable."

Now. Which is melting faster: IPCC credibility or Himalayan glaciers?

 

[cjd]

Quite - they were guilty of handling all the hassle they were getting very badly - but not of anything that changes anything about the science.

They were 3, possibly 4 dull scientists, doing work in a dusty corner for years in a science that used to be extremely unsexy; they suddenly became the centre of global scientific and political attention and got no help dealing with it from the university. Or it was massive conspiracy.

But there are two more enquiries yet so maybe something that matters will be found.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Here's a detailed and quite objective view of the current status of the climatology debate. It contains a number of very interesting little facts. For example, did you know that one reason why temperature readings may be rising in the Northern Hemisphere is because of reduced air pollution? In other words, improving our environment could be a reason why temperature measuring devices are coming up with higher numbers. I hadn't thought of this before, but it makes sense: The fewer smog particles blocking sunlight, the more radiation will reach the earth's surface.

 

[Dawg]

It's a good article that one^^^^

 

[cjd]

Well I can confirm that it's both quite good and quite interesting but it wasn't remotely objective.

 

[Dawg]

Well I can confirm that it's both quite good and quite interesting but it wasn't remotely objective.

Pot, kettle?

 

[cjd]

kettle, pot?

 

[cjd]

If you're interested in following up the rebuttals of all that (and other - what they call climate contrarian arguments) you can find it here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses

For example, here's what the consensus science says about the Hockey Stick opponents

The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, which hold that the "Hockey-Stick" shape of the MBH98 reconstruction is an artifact of the use of series with infilled data and the convention by which certain networks of proxy data were represented in a Principal Components Analysis ("PCA"), are readily seen to be false , as detailed in a response by Mann and colleagues to their rejected Nature criticism demonstrating that (1) the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction is robust with respect to the elimination of any data that were infilled in the original analysis, (2) the main features of the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely insensitive to whether or not proxy data networks are represented by PCA, (3) the putative 'correction' by McIntyre and McKitrick, which argues for anomalous 15th century warmth (in contradiction to all other known reconstructions), is an artifact of the censoring by the authors of key proxy data in the original Mann et al (1998) dataset, and finally, (4) Unlike the original Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, the so-called 'correction' by McIntyre and McKitrick fails statistical verification exercises, rendering it statistically meaningless and unworthy of discussion in the legitimate scientific literature.
The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been further discredited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, in a paper to appear in the American Meteorological Society journal, "Journal of Climate" by Rutherford and colleagues (2004) [and by yet another paper by an independent set of authors that is currently "under review" and thus cannot yet be cited--more on this soon!]. Rutherford et al (2004) demonstrate nearly identical results to those of MBH98, using the same proxy dataset as Mann et al (1998) but addressing the issues of infilled/missing data raised by Mcintyre and McKitrick, and using an alternative climate field reconstruction (CFR) methodology that does not represent any proxy data networks by PCA at all.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Why, when random data is used as input, does their model still produce a hockey stick? How on earth do you rebut that?

When I spent three years modeling physical systems, calibration of this type was fundamental. If you couldn't predict known results, you most certainly had no credibility when trying to predict new configurations. We used random data in our model and, surprise, got random results. We could also predict known effects and trends, another form of calibration. Why aren't Mann and his team held to the same basic standard? And that's before you look into the credibility of his actual input data.

The more time goes by, the more credible scientists are realising that the work of the IPCC and cohorts must be thrown out and redone.

 

[cjd]

I have no idea Steve and neither do you because neither of us have read anything other than the headline crud.

But the claim smells terribly of the zombie arguments used by creationists vs evolution - if I had to guess (which I do because I'm not going to spend an hour researching it), I'd say that it's been debunked years ago but still lives in the minds of lazy journalists writing a good story.'

Do you genuinely think that the entire scientific community is blind to a basic premise of modeling that only you and our economist are aware of it?

 

[Cornish Steve]

Billions in funding and personal fortunes were, sadly, not on the line when I was doing my research.

 

[sunny09]

agree with you,look for the same.

 

[jncc]

Do you genuinely think that the entire scientific community [can be] blind to a basic premise of modeling that only you and our economist are aware of it?

Easily. It happens all the time, especially in fields like medicine, for example. "The scientific community" is, in my experience, just as vulnerable to band-wagon jumping, fashions of opinion, and dogma as a group of school children. Perhaps they are even more so (due to certain character traits often found in that community), and certainly a lot more dangerous when it happens.