Energy Change for Climate Control
RSS icon Home icon
  • Newsnight : Complain to the BBC

    Posted on August 24th, 2010 Jo 86 comments

    I don’t expect much from it in terms of any kind of sensible, relevant reply, but here’s my two eurocents’ worth, as loaded at :-

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

    The BBC are undergoing a review on balance in Science reporting. They need to get Climate Change right, and that could start by one of their programme editors actually trying to understand what programmes like this do to an unprepared or semi-prepared audience.

    The Newsnight audience have been left with the view that “maybe Climate Change is not so bad after all”, which is the worst take-home message they could be given.

    See further down the post for e-mail traffic related to the Newsnight broadcast of 23rd August 2010.


    Dear BBC,

    I wish to point out to you that certain comments made by Andrew Montford on BBC Newsnight on 23rd August 2010 were inaccurate. I viewed the part of the programme where he was interviewd on iPlayer, but this now appears to have been cut from the online show for that date :-

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newsnight/

    One comment in particular will, I believe, require an apology from BBC Newsnight. The segment of the show in which Andrew Montford appeared closed with a question directed to him specifically from the presenter Kirsty Wark, on the subject of Climate Change evidence, to which Andrew Montford replied “we just don’t know”.

    This is inaccurate. We have report after report on the clear incontrovertible evidence of Climate Change and its significant impact on the Earth’s biosphere.

    The question is not “does Climate Change have any impact or does it have some impact ?” The Science has moved beyond that kind of question, as Kirsty Wark should know and should have reflected in her presentation of the show.

    The question is not even, “is Climate Change going to affect us all somewhat or is it going to affect a lot of people quite badly (while the rest of us will be OK) ?”

    The real question at the frontline of Science about Climate Change should be “is Climate Change bad or is it really serious ?”, the answer to which is “it’s probably going to get really quite bad indeed”.

    I would also like to complain about Kirsty Wark’s introduction to the segment on Climate Change when she smirked at the camera and said “but is is true ?”

    Is Kirsty Wark a Climate Change Scientist ? Does she know anything about Climate Change Science ? Can she possibly dare to offer an opinion about it or question what the Scientists have said ?

    I think BBC Newsnight was irresponsible in broadcasting this interview without caveats. The last word should have been given to the Science, not the denier Andrew Montford who has no credentials, and now, no credibility whatsoever.

    My opinion is that denying the clear, well-documented evidence of significantly damaging changes in the Earth system is as bad as denying the Holocaust, or that HIV infections lead to AIDS, or that smoking gives people cancer.

    Climate Change and its damages are not somewhere off in the future, as Andrew Montford asserts. Climate Change is real and it’s happening now, and the overwhelming majority of the world’s Science academics and institutions have produced reports and research articles detailing this fact.

    Why Newsnight thought they should invite somebody with views so completely opposed to the facts on to the show to pronounce on Climate Change is beyond my understanding.

    There is no debate in Climate Change. There is only one position, and that position is that it’s serious and getting worse, although at the moment we just don’t know whether that’s going to turn out as “horribly bad” or “incredibly dangerous”.

    Andrew Montford’s view simply does not count and he should not have been invited, not even in the name of so-called “balance”. The “balance” you should have sought would lie between those Scientists who feel that Climate Change is “abrupt and dangerous” and those who feel that it is “catastrophic”.

    I demand an apology from BBC Newsnight and from Kirsty Wark for their biased, inaccurate reporting on Climate Change.

    jo.
    http://www.joabbess.com


    Look, it’s not a brilliant, erudite complaint. There’s no room for citations, references and discussion of the actual Science.

    Kirsty Wark messed up. It’s time for her to admit that she now seems a lot like the “Bridget Jones” of Science reporting – embarrassed and embarrassing.

    You won’t catch me talking to BBC Newsnight, ever. Such mistreatment of the Science deserves being given a very wide berth.

    Here follows some e-mail traffic related to the broadcast.


    Here’s what Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science had to say about the Newsnight programme :-

    “Subject: ‘Newsnight’ losing the plot? : Andrew Montford has pointed out on his blog that he is due to appear on ‘Newsnight’ this evening about the link between the floods in Pakistan and climate change. I had heard rumours that the Newsnight editor now thinks all climate change coverage should include a ‘sceptic’ and this seems to be confirmation. I’ve left the comment below on the ‘Newsnight’ blog. I see that Andrew Montford is bragging on his Bishop Hill blog that he is an interviewee on this evening’s programme about the link between the floods in Pakistan. His only contribution to the climate change debate so far has been a controversial book about palaeoclimatology, so it is not clear what his expertise on climate change and extreme weather is meant to be. Or perhaps he will be representing Lord Lawson’s group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which now regularly provides the ‘balancing’ voice of dissent every time a scientist is interviewed about climate change on ‘Newsnight’. If so, this is presumably evidence of the commitment of ‘Newsnight’ to impartiality rather than accuracy? And can I look forward to further instances of this balance by for instance, including comments from a creationist every time there is a story about evolution?”


    George Marshall of the Climate Outreach Information Network responded, “Dear Bob and all, I believe that it is entirely appropriate (and important) to call a news programme directly and complain about their coverage- all calls are logged and recognised (if not heeded) by editorial staff. Here are the numbers for standard complaints, though I find that it is usually much more effective to ask for the programme office and speak to the desk staff (or better still the editor involved with the problem piece) directly rather than being fobbed off with someone in a call centre. I have done this myself many times and enjoy putting them on the spot and I think a good grilling from you, Bob, would teach them a lesson!”

    MEDIA COMPLAINTS

    Channel Four and ITV News -0207 833 3000 and ask for liaison line (recorded messages checked hourly)

    BBC TV and Radio Complaints Line-08700 100 222 (someone staffing the line 24 hours day)

    Channel Five Complaints Line – 0845 7050505

    “And if you want to be more personal, you can usually ask for any programme news editor or a specific journalist through the switchboard.”

    BBC Radio Switchboard 0207 580 4468
    ITN Switchboard 0207 833 3000
    Channel Five Switchboard 0207 550 5555
    BBC TV Switchboard 0208 743 8000


    Chris Keene, green politician wrote in reaction, “I suspect that the editors genuinely believe there is scientific controversy, and thanks to the UEA email theft (I won’t dignify it with the term ‘climategate’ since it implies wrongdoing by UEA) they suspect there is a conspiracy by scientists to exaggerate climate change to get more money for research into it”


    Christopher Shaw wrote, “Dear all, I have been following the work of Medialens (one of the editors being…David Cromwell) since the inception of that project. The work of Medialens has shown repeatedly that the BBC is the voice of the establishment on certain areas, such as economics, foreign policy, the wonders of Western democracy etc etc. However, I think the BBC has also tried to ensure that its coverage is accurate (I think a separate thing from bias). Thus I really struggle to make sense of why they insist on airing the opinions of contrarians as science, when of course they are simply value statements, grounded in particular attitudes to risk. What issues are deemed by the BBC to be in need of impartiality is very revealing of the BBC’s relationship to power – for example dead British soldiers are invariably described as heroes, with no perceived need to balance this opinion.”


    A reply from John Nissen, “Hi Chris, I think you are dignifying the BBC editors! They really should know better. Any questioning around climate scientists would have put them right. The scientists are not exaggerating global warming or its affects. Indeed, in the program they asked whether the UEA business had made scientists more reticent. So the editors must realise that scientists are liable to understate the dangers, not overstate them. The program asked a simple question – about influence of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) on the floods – and managed to give credibility to the “don’t know” answer, thus giving the oxygen of publicity to climate sceptics. The program was a disgrace. But the BBC is not alone. It seems that, as the effects of global warming become more and more apparent, the media will more and more downplay them. Wishful thinking has become editorial policy. However, there is the occasional glimmer of reality breaking through, from none other than the normally sceptic Daily Mail


     

    86 responses to “Newsnight : Complain to the BBC”

    1. Certainly Kirsty Wark is no climate scientist but are you, yourself a climate scientist?

    2. @Nigel

      Well, Nigel, I studied Physics, and I’ve been reading Climate Change Science on and off for the last 25 years. I don’t claim to know everything, but I am clear about a number of important things, for example the fact of increased Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas emissions causing accumulation in the Atmosphere causing Global Warming. As I say, that’s a fact.

      As for the general living conditions on Earth, studies have almost unanimously shown an unrelenting pattern of change, consistent with Climate Change Science projections. Knowing that means I am way ahead of the average BBC TV viewer. But why do I know more than the avergage BBC TV viewer ? And why doesn’t the BBC know enough to present the basic facts to people every time they mention Climate Change ?

      Being scared of the impacts that the facts may have in the public mind doesn’t make the facts go away.

      There’s no use pretending that the facts aren’t there, or softening their impact.

      Wake up ! Greenland’s melting ! The Arctic Sea Ice is dripping away !

      I know some people think that sounding the alarm is negative. I think that sounding the alarm is an essential duty of everybody who knows the facts, even only some of them.

      There is no point in sounding the alarm without offering rescue. There are things that can be done to save us from Climate Doom. We need to stop using Fossil Fuels, which means the Fossil Fuel companies will need to diversify out of Carbon Energy. Fast.

      Are you surprised that the Fossil Fuel companies spend so much money on spreading disinformation ?

      Are they waiting for the “Great Carbon Bailout” – for taxpayer money to be spent helping the Fossil Fuel companies to convert all their Energy supply to Renewable sources ? What do you think people propose a Carbon Tax for ? It’s all about feeding the private Energy companies enough public wealth to convince them to change course and stop mining and pumping Fossil Fuels.

    3. “There is no debate in Climate Change. There is only one position, and that position is that it’s serious and getting worse, although at the moment we just don’t know whether that’s going to turn out as “horribly bad” or “incredibly dangerous”.”

      Oh yes there is debate. Natural climate change is winning the debate hands down. And natural climate change certainly could be very dangerous if the Holocene interglacial ends and we cool into the next, and very overdue, ice-age.

      Methinks Jo that your scientific understanding is very poor (horribly bad or incredibly dangerous).

    4. You guys really are religious nuts. First of all a programme about the Pakistani floods being caused by climate change is in itself bound to fail (a) because they’re not, they’re part of the problems caused by the stationary jet stream, at least according to NASA and (b) because even if they were we would need a sustained recurrence of these events over decades to claim the climate had changed.

      You make the claim that Kirsty Wark isn’t qualified to talk about climate change because she isn’t a climate scientist. Does that mean we can’t discuss the existence, or not, of the Higgs Boson because we’re not physicists?

      Finally, the “evidence” is not uncontrovertible if it were there wouldn’t be a sceptic on the planet.

      1. It is warming, and has warmed about 0.8C in the last 100 years or so (IPCC);
      2. About 50% or the warming can be accounted for by natural forcings (IPCC) it is “very likely” that the other 50% is caused by the increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution (IPCC). In all other science and engineering “very likely” is technically termed as a “guess”;
      3. If the CO2 in the atmosphere it will cause a rise of 1.2C (Stefan-Boltzmann Equation for Black Body Radiation);
      4. If the earth’s temperature rises it causes more water to evaporate (numerous text books);
      5. This additional water vapour will stay in the atmosphere as water vapour and will not turn into clouds (guess by climate modellers);
      6. This will cause an increase in temperature of between 1.5C and 5C (another guess by climate modellers)

      That doesn’t look like uncontovertible evidence to me, it looks like someone is trying to frighten people into something. In fact it looks remarkably like the tactics of a religious group. “Humans are evil, they must change their ways to (insert Isamic, Christian etc.) otherwise disaster will strike them.

    5. @PhillipBratby

      Have you not read the most recent Climate Change Science on that question of ice ages ?

      Global Warming has indefinitely, perhaps permanently, postponed the next ice age.

      The Earth was cooling down until about 1880. That trend was broken by manmade Global Warming and has not been resumed. The “mid-Century cooling” of the 20th Century has been shown to be mostly a combination of (a) an arte/i/fact of a glitch in data collection in the mid 1940s (b) Global Dimming from massive industrial production that ramped up during the Second World War – the aerosols only being controlled in the early 1970s (c) natural internal variability in the Climate system.

    6. Jo, I don’t question you’re scientific knowledge, but come on:

      “As for the general living conditions on Earth, studies have almost unanimously shown an unrelenting pattern of change, consistent with Climate Change Science projections.”

      That is palpably untrue, the forecasts have constantly changed to accommodate all weather events. Hurricanes haven’t increased (nor should they if we get warmer), last year’s cold winter wasn’t forecast, but was accommodated in the forecasts. There is no single weather event that isn’t accommodated in the forecasts, and if the alarmists hadn’t hoisted themselves on their own petards by declaring last winter as weather they’d be telling us now the Russian heatwaves were forecast.

      “Wake up ! Greenland’s melting ! The Arctic Sea Ice is dripping away.”

      Now that would be worrying if it was the first time it’s ever happened, but it isn’t, the Arctic ice disappearing is common throughout recent history and has been documented, and, of course, every schoolchild knows that the Viking were farming in Greenland around a 1000 years ago.

      You also forgot to mention that the Antarctic ice is increasing.

      “There is no point in sounding the alarm without offering rescue. There are things that can be done to save us from Climate Doom. We need to stop using Fossil Fuels, which means the Fossil Fuel companies will need to diversify out of Carbon Energy. Fast”

      We simply can’t diversify out of Carbon Energy in anything like to timescales the alarmists are requiring to stabilise the CO2 in the atmosphere. You’re a physicist, you should be aware of how long it took for the ideas of Faraday and Maxwell to get to prototype and how long after that to get to industrial production. To leave fossil fuels now on the basis of hysterical scientists would be disastrous for the human race, it’s not going to happen. It isn’t sceptics who’ve scuppered Kyoto and Copenahagen it’s realism.

      “Are you surprised that the Fossil Fuel companies spend so much money on spreading disinformation ?”

      The only surprise I have is that anyone believes this canard. Fossil fuel companies provide 10 times more money to climate science research than they do to sceptics. The sceptics, rather than the “well-funded, well organised” meme presented to the world by the alarmist are a rag tag army of amateurs with qualifications in science, engineering and mathematics, all disciplines where “very likely” has no meaning whatsoever as an indication of cause and effect.

    7. Why is the BBC breaking it’s charter by taking a pro climate change position?

      Apparently this is backed up by a set of scientists who told them this, but we aren’t allowed to know who they are.

      ie. Even if you believe in Global warming, breaking the law to push the agenda is wrong, and doing on the basis of secret advice even more so.

    8. @Jo:

      Phew. I’m glad global warming has indefinitely, perhaps permanently, postponed the next ice age. I’ll throw away my snow shovel which I nearly wore out during last winter’s warm weather.

      Evidence please.

      How far did you get studying physics? Have you practiced it since finishing studying it?

    9. Jo,

      “The Earth was cooling down until about 1880.”

      Really – I thought the Little Ice Age ended in the eighteenth century? Certainly every temprature record shows genereal increase since the early-nineteenth century (indeed, all the proxies do as well – perhaps one of the few things that records and proxies agree on). Is this a typo, or have the goalposts been moved again?

      Incidentally, one would expect some natural variation during a period of increasing temprature, so there would be short coolings, such as the mid-century episode (and, to be fair, possibly now). You do not have to explain these away – to do so suggests we have greater understanding of the climate system than we do. And the mid-century cooling has not be shown to result from anything – it has been suggested or modelled that it has. If you are keen on good science, it would be sensible to use the correct language!

    10. “I am clear about a number of important things, for example the fact of increased Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas emissions causing accumulation in the Atmosphere causing Global Warming.”

      Hmmmm. To what level did you, as explain to Nigel, “study physics”? (A first-year meteorology student would find the above comment laughable.)

    11. The Earth was cooling down until about 1880.

      Citation required.

      The “mid-Century cooling” of the 20th Century has been shown to be mostly a combination of (a) an arte/i/fact of a glitch in data collection in the mid 1940s (b) Global Dimming from massive industrial production that ramped up during the Second World War – the aerosols only being controlled in the early 1970s (c) natural internal variability in the Climate system.

      Citation required.

      Merely repeating a mantra doth not make it true, sorry.

    12. Jo, are you now telling us that you are able to predict the (absence of the) next iceage!? That is quite a preposterous statement.

      We have had at least three warm periods during the present interglaciation prior to the present one. Presumably they all were warmer than the present one.

      And are you seriously stating that the warming (which actually occured already from 1850, rather there was cooling between 1880 and 1910) is caused by humans?, ie prior to notable increase in CO2-levels from ~1940 and onwards?

      Are you not aware of that the aerosol-dimming is an additional hypothesis neccessary to suport the original one och CO2 being the driver? And that, as you do actually include, the natural variations are far from understood, which however only appears as anargument when lack of warming need to be ‘explained’, never the other way around?

      Are these things completely new to you, although you state you’ve spent 25 years reading about the climate science?

      Anyway: What is a Climate _Change_ Scientist?

    13. “Have you not read the most recent Climate Change Science on that question of ice ages ?”

      Well I have, and it is composed of nothing short of wild guess mathematical speculations. They are not composed of “observations”, “experiments”, etc., but rather of very bad (in the sense of having lack of skill) untested models.

      IOW, they mean nothing. Oh and congrats for having studied “physics”, so therefore you are entitled to say everything while Montford isn’t entitled to say anything at all. How I love the smell of arrogance in the morning.

    14. Dear BBC,
      Jo writes ‘There is no debate in Climate Change’. But, Jo, doesn’t Andrew Montford’s book The Hockey Stick Illusion describe just such a debate between honest and reputable scientists over whether the recent period of global warming is out-of-the-ordinary or not?
      There are many important aspects of climate science about which there is substantial and active disagreement between experts. Take for example the question of relative importance of different human impacts (such as rural land use, urbanisation, ‘greenhouse’ gas emissions, brown haze, sulfate aerosols etc.) on measured surface temperatures. In this branch of climate science there are major discrepancies between the orthodox view as expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the abundant published peer-reviewed findings of R.A.Pielke Snr and his co-workers in the University of Colorado in Boulder. In all branches of science such disagreement is normal and desirable – indeed without debate scientific progress would be impossible. Long live science!

    15. How many time must the obvious be stated.
      THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING.
      Nobody is disputing this fact, not Andrew Mountford, not Steven Mcintyre, not Richard Lindsen, NOBODY! NOBODY is denying that the climate is, has been and will continue to change.
      Humans always have and always will have an effect on the environment. We build things, we divert rivers, we take water fro areas where we shoudn’t. We cut down trees and pollute the oceans.Our personal and industrial secretions are everywhere.
      Although we interfere with and change our environment, we do not have the power to control our atmostphere because we do not know how it works. Computer models don’t do science, they reflect the biases that are built into their programs. Whilst there is evidence of climate all around us and we can predict weather events at a local level, based on historical data, anything beyond that is outside our ability.
      I Knwo, as the vast majority of people know, that the climate changes. What i do not know and can find no evidence for is the anthrophogenic content of that change, other than in “computer models” Empirical evidence todate contradicts those models and will, in my opinion, continue to do so because they are WRONG

    16. JA ‘Global Warming has indefinitely, perhaps permanently, postponed the next ice age’

      This is excellent news. Ice Ages are Bad Things. Very little sunlight is absorbed and very few crops grow – go and look at Antarctica.

      Since we need crops to grow to feed the increasing population that we anticipate, then a slight increase in temperature (makes crops grow faster) and an increase in CO2 (makes crops more abundant), is all Good News.

      The minor collateral effects predicted by the doom merchants are a price well worth paying to avoid the catastrophe that a new Ice Age would bring.

    17. I agree Luis – one thing that turned me from someone deeply concerned about AGW and mans role was the “settled science” arrogance of people like Jo.

      The arrogance that only those who “believe” can possibly be used by the likes of the BBC is a classic example.

      Jo – you do real science a dis-service.

      Advocacy has no place in scientific debate.

      Like most people in the UK – I agree that man must have a cause and effect on our environment and that means climate.

      What is wrong with the “old school – hockey stick” based spin is that the data was clearly manipulated. And your beliefe system is “old school” – it has been superceded.

      UK Met Office is now having to re do its data.

      The Canadian equivalent data is seen to be woefully inadequate.

      New Peer reviewed statistical analysis shows that the Cataclysmic conclusions Climatologists jumped to with this dodgy data was more than just a jump to far – it was bordering on deception.

      And now even Wiki is waking up to the blatant spin and information abuse that surrounds “Climatology”.

      My advice is that you need a reality check because the truth is galloping away from you whilst you struggle with shutting the stable door.

      It is too late – it is over – no one believes the hype and spin. What we need now is real and truthful data – not spin doctors like you on a mission to bend the facts to your perceived version of reality.

      Your other post is desperate in its desire to state “Climategate? – nothing to see – move along!”
      Your notoriety as a biased and flawed commentator came to the fore with your desire to spin a BBC report a year or two ago.
      And now you have a hissy fit because Montford states the truth.

      The truth – something that I really do not think you are capable of recognising anymore.

    18. I am surprised that JA thinks that the case for AGW is so weak that it will be fatally undermined by Mr Montford saying ‘we don’t know’? Can it really not stand up to this mild-mannered scepticism?

      An ‘unprepared’ reader might see this and think that the complainer is shouting so loud because she knows that it is only by drowning out the critics that her case is allowed to pass without genuine and robust examination. And that the BBC does not employ any scientists in its ‘science’ team who could make a sensible appraisal.

      But, like JA, I too studied a ‘hard’ science (Chemistry) to Masters level, and find the case for CAGW as currently presented to be entirely unconvincing.

    19. I’d just like to add that Mr Montford also studied Chemistry to degree level, if you want a ‘my qualification is better than yours’ competition, he stacks up well against your degree in Physics.

      Please grow up and shed your mantle of self-righteous certainty. You diminish yourself and your case.

    20. pesadilla …

      Strictly speaking, there are those who deny that climate is changing. At least for the 1000-2000 years before the 20th century. Or at least they are working really really hard at it, that is att getting rid of the midieval warm period. But then again, you could argue how successful they have been, or how sustainable that was …

    21. “I wish to point out to you that certain comments made by Andrew Montford on BBC Newsnight on 23rd August 2010 were inaccurate. I viewed the part of the programme where he was interviewd on iPlayer, but this now appears to have been cut from the online show for that date :-

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newsnight/

      One comment in particular will, I believe, require an apology from BBC Newsnight. The segment of the show in which Andrew Montford appeared closed with a question directed to him specifically from the presenter Kirsty Wark, on the subject of Climate Change evidence, to which Andrew Montford replied “we just don’t know”.

      Jo, why don’t you state which ‘certain comments made by Andrew Montford’ were inaccurate? How are the BBC supposed to know to which you refer?

      Second, when he answered ‘we just don’t know’, what was the question?

      When you say ‘There is no debate in Climate Change. There is only one position……’, do you mean that there is no disagreement about detection, attribution, impacts, and even policy response, and adaptation and mitigation? Surely you don’t.

    22. dominic charles

      Let me get this straight. You felt compelled to write a lengthy complaint because a BBC report on freak floods didn’t pay sufficient homage to your mania? Crackers.

      I wonder how long it will take to dawn on you that as much as it subjugates the eardrums, browbeating zealotry persuades no-one.

    23. Leonard Weinstein

      Jo,
      I have degrees in physics and engineering through DSc (in fluid mechanics and heat transfer). I have extensively read material on global warming issues for over 25 years. I started out accepting there was a problem, and ended out convinced there was not. You are a typical person with just enough background to make you feel you are on top of the issue. I assure you you are not. I can’t say without question there is no problem, but I can say there is not sufficient supporting evidence that there is. In fact, the evidence indicated that we are heading for a cooling period over the next couple of decades, and likely will tend to a much worse cooling period in the longer term, but with ups and downs in between. If you actually listened to the reasonable skeptics (and by the way, if a person is not a skeptic, they are not scientists), and if you had an open mind, you would eventually change your position.

    24. Why don’t the Deniers understand?

      We have been telling them for ten years we only have ten years left.

      Are the deaf as well as dumb?

    25. Oh dear.
      Climate changes, climate has always changed. The question is..
      “Is the warming seen over the past (insert desired number of years) out of the ordinary”?
      There’s increasing doubt that it isn’t anything out of the ordinary.
      You cite melting in the Arctic, now, over what timescale? The kayak expedition by Lewis Pugh in 2008, reached 60 fewer miles further north than an expedition in 1922 (Washington Post, November 1922)
      Melting in Greenland, well,need one cite the fact that Vikings had farming communities established in Greenland
      As a previous comment noted, you haven’t mentioned the above mean levels of sea ice in the Antarctic.
      If we go back a few years, we were regailed with tales of an increased frequency of hurricanes & an increase in their strength. Neither of these have come to pass (See Ryan Maue’s & Prof Pielke Jnr’s work on these areas) Even Al Gore has dropped the slide about hurricane frequency from his presentations.
      Have a look at “The Little Ice Age Thermometers” website http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
      Many temperature records shown go back to the 1700s,some earlier. Armargh’s is interesting http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/Armagh_Ireland.html
      It looks like it’s been warming since the record started in 1796, with general warming from 1796 to ~1860, then a decline until ~1895, increase again until the mid 1950s, decrease to the mid 1960s, then up again (Note the caveats about population growth, ie UHI).
      If, as you say “Global Warming has indefinitely, perhaps permanently, postponed the next ice age” ,we should be very, very thankful. It’s cold spells that destroy humanity, shortening growing seasons, causing famines and wars.
      Humanity thrived during the Minoan Warm Period, it thrived during the Roman Warm Period, it thrived during the Medieaval Warm Period and it’s thrived during the Modern Warm Period. Look what happened when temperatutes fell after these episodes of warmth.(Source of warm periods, Grootes, P. M. (et al.), ‘Comparison of oxygen isotope records from the GISP2 and GRIP Greenland ice cores’, Nature,366, 1993, pp. 552-4.)
      So Ms Abbess, some truth about climate change would be desirable, wouldn’t it!

    26. I’m afraid your knowledge of climate is insufficient for you to make comments such as these. Andrew Montford was absolutely correct when he said we don’t know. The temperature anomaly is incredibly small and any signal is in fact lost in the noise.
      The recent statistical paper condemning Michael Mann’s results shows quite clearly that any warming we have experienced in the last twenty years is not statistically significant, nor is it significantly different from previous warming events.
      It’s now time for honest debate, not wild guesswork and disingenuous spin.
      If the world is indeed in danger then no sane person would argue against the most severe measures to put it right.
      As of right now, there is nothing to suggest that is the case, indeed the evidence for manipulation and distortion of the facts by multiple agencies is quite overwhelming.
      Complaining to the BBC might have had results in the past, but your bullying techniques are now widely known and disliked.
      Believe what you like. Let others enjoy the same privilege.

    27. “Well, Nigel, I studied Physics, and I’ve been reading Climate Change Science on and off for the last 25 years. I don’t claim to know everything, but I am clear about a number of important things, for example the fact of increased Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas emissions causing accumulation in the Atmosphere causing Global Warming. As I say, that’s a fact.”

      What nonsense. There isn’t a single paper that has used empirical evidence to show a link between human emissions of CO2 and climate change. In fact, the empirical evidence tends to point the other way. A long time after temperature trends change we expect to see an effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere due to the effect of rising temperature on the solubility of CO2.

      In fact, the scientific papers that look at empirical evidence show that changes in solar activity have a much greater effect on temperature change. That is why we had the Holocene Optimum, Minoan Warming, Roman Warming, and Medieval Warm Periods during times when human emissions were immaterial.

      Montford’s contribution is great. He has exposed the hockey stick fraud by sticking to the data and methodology that created it. By doing so, he has far more credibility than the so-called ‘climate experts’ that the BBC has been counting on to spread a message not supported by science.

      This debate would be very easy to settle. All we need to do is release all of the raw data, metadata, and algorithms that create the temperature profile being shown to the public. Let independent researchers see how that data was collected, adjusted, and processed to get the end product that is being sold to the public as fact. I suggest that if that happened, sausage making would look good in comparison.

    28. Jo you have ‘blown it’ with just one sentence this one…

      “The Earth was cooling down until about 1880. That trend was broken by manmade Global Warming and has not been resumed”.

      1880 was the tail end of the ‘little ice age’ (LIA)… The LIA followed the ‘Medieval warm period’ (MWP)… and yes it WAS worldwide.

      ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED is that the temp. has gone back up to ALMOST where is was before the LIA happened.

      If you don’t know this fact you don’t know your stuff… and if you do know, you are being disingenuous to say the kindest. Either way you have blown it…

      This is of course is what the book on the Hockystick is about… the MWP and the LIA had to go so that what was left showed we had ‘unprecedented warming …

      The climate changes, that’s what is does best..

    29. Alistair McDhui

      Sorry to disappoint but a 36 year error in physics means the IPCC’s predictions of future AGW are unsubstantiated. Remember ‘global dimming’ to offset predicted temperatures well above reality? One part, optical scattering by aerosols is proven. The other, greater ‘reflection’ by polluted clouds, has no general experimental proof. Indeed, the reverse has been reported.

      Climate science was fooled because the theory, greater optical depth for more, smaller droplets so more ‘reflection’, was apparently verified for thin clouds but breaks down for thick clouds. Also, measured cloud albedos, up to 0.9, are much higher than the predicted <= 0.5 and there's unpredicted directionality. So, there's a second optical effect: I've got some ideas which explain the observations.

      No 'polluted cloud cooling' means the IPCC models are wrong, their calibration is wrong, or both. As a physicist, you might be interested in NASA's version of Twomey's [partially correct] theory e.g.: http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sgg/singh/winners4.html 'greater reflection because smaller droplets have higher surface area', plausible but totally fallacious. I wonder why they attempted to change the science?

    30. Jo,

      I know you mean well. However, it is plain that you don’t have much scientific awareness, despite having studied some physics in the past. You base your opinions on belief of things you don’t actually understand. You trust that the so-called “consensus” view is correct.

      Now, I’ll grant you that we ought, in a perfect world, to be able to trust those designated as “experts”. The *principle* of relying on their word seems reasonable, but that does presuppose that they actually *are* expert.

      This is something neither you nor I can easily judge, because we ourselves lack the necessary expertise. The difference between us seems to be that you choose to place unconditional trust in them. On the other hand, and precisely because I don’t possess sufficient expertise to evaluate the scientific claims (though I try to understand as much as I can), I focus on something that I have some hope of evaluating because it relies on a faculty that we all possess to some degree or other. I am speaking of the ability to judge trustworthiness.

      Are those promulgating CAGW, or for that matter opposing it, trustworthy? Not in relation to any personal belief or proclivity I might have, but in relation to their behaviour? Although I myself am firmly agnostic about CAGW (in the strict sense that I know I don’t know whether AGW is potentially a serious problem, though it may have *some* effect), I admit to a proclivity for scepticism. I accept need to keep an eye on that lest it become a tendency to dismiss anything a priori, simply because I don’t like it or want it not to be true.

      So when it comes to issues such as CAGW, I have to try to exercise as much personal detachment as possible. I have to look at the behaviour of proponents and antagonists and try to evaluate what it tells me about the likelihood of their expressions of certainty being trustworthy. In practice, this involves my asking myself such questions as:

      1. Is the person or organisation expressing a certain viewpoint open and transparent (for example, with respect to information, data and methods)?

      2. Are they respectful to those holding contrary opinions? Especially those whose level of expertise is of the same order?

      3. Are they genuinely prepared to engage with those holding contrary views?

      4. Are there any potential conflicts of interest in those promulgating a certain viewpoint?

      5. Does their behaviour align with the views they express, or is there any sign of hypocrisy?

      6. Do they allow personal views, e.g. in the realms of politics and morality, to influence them?

      7. Do they make attempts to suppress dissention?

      8. Are such predictions and claims as they make borne out by any evidence that needs only minimal scientific expertise to evaluate?

      For what it’s worth, my investigations thus far (and I only became interested in this since Climategate broke; before then, I didn’t really have much cause to question CAGW) have persuaded me that, whilst neither side is lily-white, CAGW proponents and organisations display the more egregious signs of untrustworthiness.

      It is they who are driving the issue, who are insisting they are right and that urgent action is needed that could, if they are wrong, result in human misery possibly as bad or worse than that which they are purporting to combat. I do not currently trust them enough to accept the advisability of such action at the present time.

      I must say, I take exception to proponents who seek to derogatorily label those who disagree with them, or, like me, who are agnostics with some cause to question. One might say that it only adds to my opinion of them as untrustworthy advocates rather than disinterested parties.

      No amount of soap-boxing is going to change those who have doubts. Indeed, the more there is, the more people will be alienated. There is only one way to change them, and that is to take them seriously, engage them with respect, and present incontestable arguments.

      Are the arguments of AGW proponents incontestable? Not their beliefs, not their political or moral leanings, but their scientific arguments? People such as you and I can’t determine that, because we lack sufficient expertise. But if those who had more expertise could meet in open forum on a level playing field, observed by us, then we (not to mention they) could make a more accurate judgement.

      The very fact that the pro-side seems to be avoiding this as much as possible does not inspire confidence. They could be right, but if so, they aren’t behaving in the way that those who truly know something generally behave. Genuine certainty is rarely exhibited in a strident manner. It is much more usually expressed with equanimity and confidence. In fact, the confidence is what enables the equanimity. (S)he who is certain, and knows it, has no need of shouting, moral pleading, or parroting “facts” of which (s)he has little personal understanding.

      Let’s stop shouting. Let’s learn to entertain doubt, not least about our personal proclivities and limitations, and engage with those who have differing opinions. It’s our only hope of approaching nearer the truth, even if that truth is only the recognition of how little we actually know. The truth is whatever it is regardless of how many think like us, or how authoritative we deem them to be. Truth can only ever be ascertained at the level of the individual. Do you, or I, or any of the “experts” actually *know* that CAGW is correct? Seriously, any single one of them, when we don’t even know in detail how clouds affect climate?

      Stop believing, Jo. Start knowing what you actually know. Like me, I suspect you’ll find it’s next to nothing. The admission of ignorance, as the sages have perennially said, is the beginning of wisdom.

    31. I wonder, why Jo writes Science and Scientist with a capital S. Looks like mentioning the High Priest or a religion.

    32. When Andrew Montford was asked a question and answered “we just dont know” he set himself apart from say the IPCC who say we are 95% certain about CO2.
      If you read the IPCC full reports you find that the margins of error in their understanding of the impact of aerosols, water vapour, clouds, the sun, CO2 and other possible contributors to climate variability are “massive”.
      The area of uncertainty extends even to whether they in fact cool or warm the earth.
      Mr Montford spoke the truth.

    33. Perhaps unlike Jo, I have a science degree and have worked in the sciences (geology, chemistry, paleoclimatology etc) for over 30 years. Also, perhaps unlike Jo, I listened when my WWII age mother told me to think for myself, not to accept without critical thought what the Learned Men, including politicians, generals and, yes, scientists (with or without a capital “s”), tell me. Private and not-so-private agendas run lives as well as corporations. Science is not so difficult as to be understood by a reasonably educated and questioning “civilian”. Complicated, yes, difficult, no, unless single solutions to multi-variant problems are what one needs. The more I learn, the more uncertainty and variation in the “constants” I find. The simplest, I recently found, is that the amount of energy received by the earth is NOT constant. Trying to figure out the actual amount that we receive on the ground is very difficult. And that is just the start of the situation. The +/- of any equation for heating/cooling on a decadal level appears far greater than the 0.8C*/last 30 years as proposed (which I believe is in positive error by adjustments). How we claim to have a pCO2 correlation in such a mass of variables is beyond me. I suppose hair-splitting is the task of experts. Statisticians, anyway. I’m perplexed that, for such a proposed catastrophic event taking place, we require statisticians and billion dollar computer systems to see it.

    34. Commenters, you are all so wonderfully polite and reasoned – not to say almost gentle – in your treatment of the deluded Ms Abbess.

      Sadly, it won’t work. I write this having just read her appallingly ignorant and disrespectful rant at Judith Curry, and I can tell you with great certainty that your kindness will only make her worse. Particularly as it now appears that she has decided to stay off the lithium for a while.

      Don’t waste your time.

    35. I would like to address a smalll series of questions to Jo that I hope she will take time to answer.

      Jo, you seem to be implying that the Pakistan flooding was somehow an example of weather that is “consistent with Climate Change Science projections”. I hope I understood the point you were making here.

      My questions therefore are as follows:

      Firstly: Are there ANY weather (or climatic) events which may have happened over the past 1000 years which (if they happened in the next 100 years) you would consider to be INCONSISTENT with Climate Change Science projections going forward?

      Secondly: Is there ANY weather (or climatic) event which has happened over the past, say, ten years which you consider to be SO unusual (or rare in a statistical sense) that you consider it to be INCONSISTENT with weather or climate over the past 1000 years?

      Because if your answer is negative in each case, then it adds absolutely nothing to the argument to keep affirming that current weather or climatic events remain consistent with Climate Change Science projections going forward. In fact, it must be hard to imagine ANY event that could happen in the next ten years that could be INCONSISTENT with Climate Change Science projections going forward.

      I look forward to your reply.

    36. @MatthewPearce

      You are being very logical, but I think I need to clarify what I mean by “consistent with Climate Change Science projections”, as it makes your questions somewhat tangential to the argument.

      The Science of Climate Change projects that extreme weather events will occur more frequently, and with an increasing ferocity, as there is more energy in the air and ocean systems owing to higher overall temperatures, due to Global Warming, due to humankind’s increased Carbon Dioxide emissions, due to burning Fossil Fuels :-

      Allow me to mention a classic well-fought over extreme weather event – the European heatwave in the summer of 2003 :-

      http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/06/was_the_2003_european_summer_h.php

      The land surface temperatures were exceptional, really outside the normal statistical distribution curve.

      Besides seeing more hotter events, and less cold events, we are seeing more record hotter events, and less record colder events. The pattern should be clear :-

      See also Stott, Stone and Allen (2004) :-

      http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2004/Human-Contribution-Heatwave2dec04.htm

    37. On what are you basing your graphics? Models? Sure it all looks very convincing, but the models are demonstrably WRONG. It wasn’t long ago Climate Change Alarmists were telling us hurricane intensity was going to increase. Indeed this was one of the shock tactics used by Al Gore in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Well, have they? No, in fact the opposite has occurred. Hurricane activity is now at its lowest level for 30 years!

      I also note on the blog you have cited (Scienceblogs), the graphs only date back to 1980. What happens if you go back to, say, 1900? Or what about 1800? Or perhaps 1100? You don’t have the data, do you? So your cause from correlation is simply hypothesis based on ignorance (of the actual mechanisms in play over the medium and longer term).

      You may have no trouble pointing to increasing temperatures in the late 20th century. You may have quite some considerable trouble demonstrating that these are unique – and that they didn’t happen, say, 800 years ago or during the Roman Optimum 1,800 years ago.

      On the whole I think the entire area is ripe for scepticism and the increasingly shrill tones of people like you, trying to suppress dissent in the media, only serves to increase my suspicions. Personally I applaud the BBC for having the guts to air both sides of the argument, even though they are under immense political pressure from the do-gooders and leftie environmentalists in their own organisation to shut down the debate.

    38. @JerryMead

      Are you suggesting that Dr Judith Curry is a manic depressive (with your mention of lithium) ?

      The only medication I take is a nice cup of tea from time to time, no sugar, with calcium-based liquid whitening agent.

    39. Jo,

      You haven’t absorbed anything that has been written by any of the commenters have you? Try reading Michael Larkin’s comment very slowly and carefully next time you want to stridently repeat “owing to higher overall temperatures, due to Global Warming, due to humankind’s increased Carbon Dioxide emissions, due to burning Fossil Fuels”. Try and act as if you still remember some of that scientific logic that the physics you studied should have taught you.

      And can you tell us why you use capital letters for many normal words?

    40. ‘The Science of Climate Change projects that extreme weather events will occur more frequently, and with an increasing ferocity, as there is more energy in the air and ocean systems owing to higher overall temperatures, due to Global Warming, due to humankind’s increased Carbon Dioxide emissions, due to burning Fossil Fuels’

      OK. That is the projection – and a pretty insubstantial and general one it is too. I note that it is not capable of numeric validation…’more frequently’ doesn’t suggest whether it is 10 x more per year or 1% per century. As a prediction it is hardly better than ‘summer will likely be hotter overall than winter’. And why all the Bloody Capitals? We are in the German Language conversing Not.

      But leave that as you will…please supply some evidence that these extreme events are a. occurring more frequently and b. that the only cause for their increase in frequency (if indeed there is such an increase is unequivocally higher overall temperatures.

      We can leave discussion of the dubious assertion of ‘due to Global Warming, due to humankind’s increased Carbon Dioxide emissions’ for another time.

    41. I think that your utter belief in AGW clouds your acceptance of the fact that most, if not all, sceptics (or, as you prefer, ‘deniers’) accept that according to the temperature records the mean global temperature has been rising until recently. The problem comes when it is shouted from the pulpit that we are all doomed because these are the highest temperatures ever recorded – EVER!!!
      That just does not make any sense.
      And shouting about ‘BIG OIL’ funding – who do you think stands to make billions from Cap & Trade??

      Try
      I have a product that makes me billions now.
      I also know, without doubt, that it will run out at some time in the future.
      ‘Somebody else’ wants me to stop selling the product I already have, and is willing to set up schemes to pay me money to stop or reduce selling my product.

      Or consider the alternative.

      Catch
      I have a product that makes me billions now.
      I also know, without doubt, that it will run out at some time in the future.
      I go out of business.

      But also a h/t to you for allowing all comments thus far ;)

    42. @Jo
      You appear to be saying that the the European heatwave in the summer of 2003 was SO unusual in the context of other world weather events that it was not merely “not inconsistent with climate projections” but actually provided evidence of global warming?

      That being th case, I think you would agree that the Marble Bar heat wave http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/21/worlds-worst-heatwave-the-marble-bar-heatwave-1923-24/ provides just as much evidence of global warming.

      The only trouble (as I am sure you will be quick to appreciate) is that this 1923-24 event undermines the theory that these rare events are only being caused by rising levels of CO2.

      And should we all infer that you have been completely unable to identify ANY weather event over the past 1000 years that you would consider to be INCONSISTENT with Climate Change Science projections going forward?

      To my mind this simply shows how completely meaningless it is to keep affirming that each and every extreme event is “not inconsistent with Climate Science projections”. At the every least, there must be a better way of saying what you actually mean.

    43. The land surface temperatures were exceptional, really outside the normal statistical distribution curve.

      Are you actually aware that we are in an ice age?

      I think you should dump the tea and take what the doctor ordered.

    44. @MatthewPearce

      The European heatwave of 2003 was one of a series of extreme heating events that have occurred in the last 40 years – too closely spaced to be statistically irrelevant. Plus, it was unusually hot. That means it confirmed the Climate Change projections of more hotter events (increased frequency), and more record hot events (unprecedented).

      I know nothing about the heatwave you mention, but it was back in the 1920s. That’s an awfully long time ago. Was there nothing comparable until the heatwaves of the last ten years ?

      http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/extremeweathersequence_en.html

      “…the summer heatwave in Europe in 2003, which was the hottest in continental Europe since at least 1540…”

      The last ten years has been hotter than the ten years before that. And that decade was hotter than the previous decade as well.

      Extreme events are like the jewels in the crown of evidence – general warming trends accompanied by freak heatwaves is a sure sign of Global Warming.

    45. @Dennis

      It will probably come as a surprise to you that I do not agree with the proposals for Cap and Trade. Nor do I agree with the moves for a Carbon Tax. I don’t think that these or similar schemes can make the kind of changes that we need.

      Injecting more money into the energy system without making sure that the money gets used on new, efficient, low Carbon energy technologies will fail to “incentivise” change. Money flows like water and finds the lowest possible places to lie – losing its stimulus to effect widescale change.

      What is needed is strong legislation on the shape of the future energy supply.

      As for temperatures – they’ve been going up recently – and I don’t just mean because it’s Northern Summer. Check this out and see if you can spot the trend with the naked eye :-

    46. @LatimerAlder

      http://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html

    47. Oh dear.

      ‘As for temperatures – they’ve been going up recently – and I don’t just mean because it’s Northern Summer. Check this out and see if you can spot the trend with the naked eye :-‘

      Whilst I appreciate your response, the patronisation that comes with it is not wholly welcome.

      Could you please extend the graph to ‘recently’?

      You are responding with a graph that does not relate to the comment I made.

      And yes, I am surprised that you are not in favour of cap and trade. Forgive my assumption.

      You favour ‘strong legislation’? For whom and for what?

      And why do you not think that C&T will help?

      I don’t want to sail under false colours here, you know my scepticism, but I really would like your thoughts.

      Dennis

    48. The graph of All disasters is not immediatly apparent when following the given link. However the graphs begin in 1900!
      Would you like to consider the likelyhood of remote parts of the world being able to report natural disasters in 1900?

    49. @Dennis,

      It’s unfortunate that you think I’m behaving in a patronising manner. I thought I was being rather educational.

      The graphs extend right up to last month in 2010. So yes, the temperatures are still going up !

      My view is that the Oil and Gas and Coal companies are holding out for a universal “bailout” to pay for their conversion to Renewable Energy.

      Many people, organisations, pension funds and major institutional investors hold massive stock in Oil and Gas and Coal, which is why nobody’s even moving an inch from using Fossil Fuels at the moment. BP only invests 5% capex per year in Renewables (correct me if I’m still quoting last year’s figure and it’s changed now). Minuscule.

      To do the conversion to Low Carbon Energy, the Oil and Gas and Coal companies do need to invest their own capital in making changes – with all the major economies in huge debt, who else has the capacity to finance change but those who make large profits ? I am not willing to accept the idea of public money being spent on private companies to create a “stimulus” for the change to green energy.

      What needs to happen, in my view, is that the Oil and Gas and Coal companies accept that they need to pay for their own de-Carbonisation, and tell their shareholders to forget dividends for a couple of years until Renewable Energy investments start to pay off.

      A recession is a great time to do this, as the return on savings is almost universally rock-bottom at present, so most people will not feel the change.

      Cap and Trade, as evidenced in Europe, results in too many Carbon permits being given away to the polluters, or creates a scenario where the price of Carbon credits drops away because the only people buying are the same small group of high polluters. The theory is that Cap and Trade will give Carbon a high price, which should “disincentivise” Carbon Emissions. But the companies producing and using Fossil Fuels are locked in to using them, and the Carbon price will not provide a high enough threshold to stimulate change. Cap and Trade, much like vanilla taxation will merely make everything more expensive for ordinary consumers.

    50. @Dung

      You raise a very valid question…

      There is a lot of data gathering, that originally started with the insurance companies, and got taken up by the newspapers, who always like to report on disasters.

      Although the number of people reported as being killed by natural disasters has consistently fallen over the time since 1900, the scale of the disasters has increased :-

      This rules out the idea that there is poor reporting in some places in earlier years, to my mind. My reasoning is that if remote parts of the world were not reporting as well as other parts, then the count of those killed would have started quite low and risen – but it does not.

    51. @Jo
      You say “The European heatwave of 2003 was one of a series of extreme heating events that have occurred in the last 40 years – too closely spaced to be statistically irrelevant.”

      I have enjoyed this debate, but if you combine the very wide variety of events that can be classified as extreme (floods, hurricanes, drought, extremes of temperature, duration of heat waves) with the very large number of locations at which these can occur and the relatively short instrumental record that you appear to be comparing these extremes against (i.e. 40 years in the last example) then it is mathematically certain that you will get more and more extreme events over the next 40 years.

      And most impartial observers would probably agree that there must have been significantly more extreme temperatures being recorded each and every year during the Medieval Warm Period than have occured during the past 10 years. Furthermore, these extremes were being recorded right across the world from Antartica and South America to Europe,North America and Asia. http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

      One final thought: are the record cold winters across Europe last year and the record cold winters in South America this year broadly CONSISTENT or INCONSISTENT with Climate Science projections? And if the cold winters were to be repeated again this year?

    52. @MatthewPearce

      You write, “I have enjoyed this debate, but if you combine the very wide variety of events that can be classified as extreme (floods, hurricanes, drought, extremes of temperature, duration of heat waves) with the very large number of locations at which these can occur and the relatively short instrumental record that you appear to be comparing these extremes against (i.e. 40 years in the last example) then it is mathematically certain that you will get more and more extreme events over the next 40 years.”

      I don’t think you can claim that – so please can you give me a more in-depth explanation of your reasoning ?

      You write, “And most impartial observers would probably agree that there must have been significantly more extreme temperatures being recorded each and every year during the Medieval Warm Period than have occured during the past 10 years. Furthermore, these extremes were being recorded right across the world from Antartica and South America to Europe,North America and Asia. http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

      I could not agree less. The “Medieval Warm Period” now appears to have been a chimera of regional changes that was not reflected worldwide, and anyway, wasn’t that consistently “warmer than normal” anyway.

      The record cold winter across Europe, the American Eastern Seaboard, extending through Asia the other way, was probably due to changes with the normal pattern of weather around the Arctic, which can probably be pinned to Global Warming.

      Weather is not the same as Climate, and Global Warming means that winters are less likely to be cold in future, but it does not rule out cold winters, at least for the meantime.

      “Climate Chaos” is sometimes used to describe the changes going on – some record temperature lows will be recorded – but many more record highs will emerge.

      My projection for this winter is based on my conjecture that the problems in the Arctic region will have been more in evidence this Northern Summer than they will this coming Northern Winter. I project a very wet Northern Winter for much of Northern Europe, Central Europe and the American Eastern Seaboard. I think the Typhoon season (which unlike the Hurricane Season has seen increased activity) will be stronger for longer this year than in the last decade. Also, I think there will be a lot of unusually strong rainfall in places you would not normally expect it, like parts of Italy, Greece and Turkey and Northern Africa. But that is pure conjecture, so feel free to correct me. I think it is very likely that the parts of North West England that suffered so much rain last year will receive more this year, and also parts of Scotland, particularly the West :-

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/content/image_galleries/cockermouth_floods_gallery.shtml?45
      http://www.visitcumbria.com/cmfloods.htm

      I am calling 2010 the “Year of Unceasing Rain”. Floods in the United States, China, Pakistan, and just about everywhere simply confirm my position.

    53. Oh dear.

      “It’s unfortunate that you think I’m behaving in a patronising manner. I thought I was being rather educational.”

      Let me correct you then, you were not.

      “My view is that the Oil and Gas and Coal companies are holding out for a universal “bailout” to pay for their conversion to Renewable Energy.”

      So we agree on that then?

      Next,

      “What needs to happen, in my view, is that the Oil and Gas and Coal companies accept that they need to pay for their own de-Carbonisation, and tell their shareholders to forget dividends for a couple of years until Renewable Energy investments start to pay off.”

      Apart from the fact that ‘renewable energy investments’ is an oxymoron, why would they unless it is for the reasons I posted above? It makes no sense.

      And finally,

      “A recession is a great time to do this, as the return on savings is almost universally rock-bottom at present, so most people will not feel the change”

      I’ll translate that for you shall I?
      People who own shares in oil companies deserve to get shafted. There, FTFY.

    54. @Dennis

      I am not suggesting that shareholders should lose out. I am suggesting that while the recession is draining the ability of investments to create returns, that people should accept a slightly longer “recovery” phase in order to get capital flowing to the right project for the future – green energy.

      Green energy will create jobs and wealth lasting far into the future. Green energy infrastructure can be a genuine asset, and be truly sustainable, not requiring further heavy investment, even when, for example, repowering of wind farms is required :-

      http://www.offshorevaluation.org/

      http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/resources/green_workplaces/green_campaigns/one-million-climate-jobs-now.cfm

      People who have shares in oil companies are seeing trouble anyway. I was talking with a retired clergyman only the other week and he was reflecting on the fact that he had placed a large amount of his retirement cash in BP shares and was intensely regretting it. No doubt, further problems will arise from the Fossil Fuel industry in the coming years, and more investment will be lost.

      It’s good to put your money into the future, not the past.

      Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power are failing us, so people need to put their money into Renewable Energy to guarantee future returns on investment, I think.

    55. Jo, I clicked on your first link, parsed it for a few seconds and then saw that it would create 145,000 new jobs.

      That’s just ridiculous. As is your assertion that

      ‘Green energy will create jobs and wealth lasting far into the future. Green energy infrastructure can be a genuine asset, and be truly sustainable, not requiring further heavy investment’.

      You lost me with that comment, how? no further heavy investment? How can this be so? Have you discovered perpetual motion or an alloy that never wears out? I think we we should be told.

      h/t again for engaging, bedtime now.

    56. @Jo
      Randomly, it is unlikely that you will walk into a lift with only one other person and that he or she will have the same birthday as you. But if there are 23 or more (randomly selected) people in a room, the chances of two sharing the same birthday is actually better than even. This is because of the far greater number of possible “events” that would constitute a sharing of birthdays.

      http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.birthdayprob.html

      The same maths applies in climatology because of the large undefined number of events that could be considered to be extreme and the large number of locations at which these events could occur.

      Whether the Medieval Warm Period is considered to have been be regional or global in nature either case would have given rise to regional extremes of temperature, which is after all what the European summer of 2003 must be considered as being.

      I happen to think the MWP would have been just as “global” in nature as temperatures today. After all, how globally warm is it today if we are experiencing cold extremes in South America at the same time as we are having warm extremes in Europe?

    57. @Dennis

      One of the basic design criteria for Renewable Energy technologies is that they are “sustainable”, in other words that their components do not wear out in the same timescales as combustion technologies or nuclear reactors.

      This is to compensate for the well-known fact that Renewable Energy sources are “diffuse” meaning that they pack a lower punch over the same area as a combustion technology.

      In addition, many components of Renewable Energy technologies can be recycled easily – for example glass and steel in solar mirrors and wind turbines.

      And yet further, most Renewable Energy technologies have less of an environmental impact than “conventional” sources. Wind turbines, for example, don’t take up much land space, and don’t pollute rivers and soils with any residues – unlike Coal.

      So, in addition to having a low impact on the Climate, Renewable Energy technologies have a lower impact on the local environment and a lower impact on investment over the usual timeframe.

      What’s not to like ? Plus, it creates new jobs.

    58. JO your disaster graph comes from EM-DAT the International Diaster Dtabase.
      According to its website it was founded in the 1970s and currently has a staff of five.
      Can you explain how these five people got information about natural disasters back in 1900. Particularly those disasters that happened in the large part of the planet that had not then heard of insurance?

    59. Jo
      If you have a degree in Physics then my name is Albert Einstein .

    60. @MatthewPearce

      I cannot possibly comment on the shared birthdays problem. All I know is, I’ve met thousands and thousands of people in my life, and only one (or possibly two) that share my birthday. I didn’t ask everybody for their birthdate, however, so that argument probably falls down. And I met them all consecutively, rather than collectively. Anyway…the key point is that, given that the data is only ever going to be patchy on global Climate events, we have to look for patterns in the solid datasets that we do have. The “Medieval Warm Period” was probably just a Northern phenomenon, but we can’t be absolutely certain because there were no significant series of temperature measurements taken in the Southern Hemisphere. I don’t think that even the borehole research has been able to help on this, nor the Antarctica ice cores. I might be wrong. Perhaps I better check that again. However, studies into ocean sediments should resolve this question once and for all (about whether the “Medieval Warm Period” was global or not) and I am looking forward to a couple of papers I think are in the pipeline. The reasons for the cold extremes in South America at the present time have been explained as far as I know – they are record lows in the instrumental record but they constitute a very, very small area compared to the rest of the world which is experiencing a great number of record high temperatures this year.

    61. @Dung

      Welcome to my world, Albert. Einstein.

    62. @Dung

      Interesting question. I guess it must be all the research these five people have read over the years that is the source of their data.

    63. Seriously Jo I think you must have the kind of sense of humour that is tweaked by talking nonsense to people and relying on them to remain polite in their response.
      Sustainability? Solar panels and electric/hybrid cars need rare earth elements and although these are currently available, the largest producer is China.
      Also trying to recycle solar panels is somewhat more dangetrous than removing asbestos from old buildings.

    64. @Dung

      Never underestimate the power of recycling. The Chinese are also the world’s dumping ground for much ageing equipment, from which they are scavenging much-needed metals. New solar cells will be designed not to use Rare Earth Elements and batteries will evolve, too. No need to worry on that score. Pardon ? I don’t follow your argument that recycling solar panels might be “more dangerous than removing asbestos from old buildings”.

      Humour ? When I think you’re being entertaining, I shall let you know.

    65. I object to your sensorship! Dung is a naturaly occuring substance which is eco friendly and which you obviously approve of since you have spread so much of it around today. Nonsense does not even come close as a substitute :)

    66. One of the basic design criteria for Renewable Energy technologies is that they are “sustainable”, in other words that their components do not wear out in the same timescales as combustion technologies or nuclear reactors.

      This is to compensate for the well-known fact that Renewable Energy sources are “diffuse” meaning that they pack a lower punch over the same area as a combustion technology.

      In addition, many components of Renewable Energy technologies can be recycled easily – for example glass and steel in solar mirrors and wind turbines.

      And yet further, most Renewable Energy technologies have less of an environmental impact than “conventional” sources. Wind turbines, for example, don’t take up much land space, and don’t pollute rivers and soils with any residues – unlike Coal.

      So, in addition to having a low impact on the Climate, Renewable Energy technologies have a lower impact on the local environment and a lower impact on investment over the usual timeframe.

      What’s not to like ? Plus, it creates new jobs.

      Never in the history of the climate change debate have so few (thats you) written so much
      (drivle) that says so little to so many.

      You really are not worth arguing with Jo so goodbye and good luck :)

    67. I asked you to

      ‘Please supply some evidence that these extreme events are a. occurring more frequently and b. that the only cause for their increase in frequency (if indeed there is such an increase is unequivocally higher overall temperatures’

      So far – you have provided a partial answer to a.

      You present a graph that shows more events ‘reported’. You have not provided any evidence that this means that more have actually occurred and that the increase in reportage is not a function of improved monitoring, technology and record keeping. And of more people looking for things to record in a more organised way.

      You have not addressed point b. at all. Perhaps you expect me to automagically arrive at the conclusion that ‘it must be global warming’ because there are some dodgy graphs from Michael Mann with a very small rising trend over about the same time period.

      Well.. that sort of correlation may be good enough to provide ‘evidence’ in the social sciences, but it doesn’t cut the mustard for ‘hard science’. It is no better than primitive man sacrificing a goat each night to make the sun rise in the morning.

      Once started on this track, it never failed to work. And so became a religion…everything he saw was consistent with his belief that it was the goat’s death that was the important thing. And who would dare not to make the sacrifice, just in case the sun didn’t come back? Here was born the ‘precautionary principle’. Great news for the High Priests..pretty bad news for the poor goats.

      I find your ‘evidence’ very weak, and am genuinely surprised that you (with a degree in Physics???) are so easily persuaded.

      But I have got a hot tip for the 3:30 at Lingfield…straight from the horses mouth..honest. Just slip me a tenner and I’ll tell you………

    68. “most Renewable Energy technologies have less of an environmental impact than “conventional” sources. Wind turbines, for example, don’t take up much land space, and don’t pollute rivers and soils with any residues – unlike Coal.”

      Are you really suggesting that sufficient wind turbines to produce as much electricity as an average coal-fired power station will occupy less land than the coal-fired station? If so … I was going to say you are plainly mistaken, but the truth is you must be bonkers.

      And what about the back-up supply fired by coal/gas/nuclear that is required for the times the windmills aren’t turning? They will take up just as much land as they occupy now and we will need just as many of them if continuous supply is to be guaranteed.

      And what about the “emissions” created by the manufacture of windmills, their transport one-by-one to their working site, the tons of concrete needed to provide a stable bed for each one, the miles of cable that must be laid to link each one to the grid, the carriage of humans and parts for constant maintenance required over a wide geographical area (compared to maintenance on the contained site of a conventional power station) and their shorter lifespan compared to conventional power stations? How do these figure in your assessment of the “greenness” of wind turbines?

      Wind turbines are patently absurd as a replacement for existing generating capabilities. The key is the need for back-up supplies for when the wind is either too little to turn the blades or too much for the blades to turn safely. The more windmills you have, the more irregularly the back-up supply will be used and the less efficiently it will operate. It’s like a car, you get better mileage running at a constant speed over a long distance than by continually stopping and starting around town. The more windmills you have the more the back-up stations are stopping and starting, the more they suffer from wear-and-tear (requiring more maintenance and reducing their lifespan) and the more energy they waste in firing-up and slowing-down.

      There is no such thing as efficient “green” electricity production. Maybe there will be one day but there is no sign of that day appearing soon.

    69. “One of the basic design criteria for Renewable Energy technologies is that they are “sustainable”, in other words that their components do not wear out in the same timescales as combustion technologies or nuclear reactors.”
      What a load of twaddle!
      What is the lifespan of a wind-subsidy farm’s turbine bearings compared to those in fossil fuel or nuclear installations?
      If this is the best you can do, it’s no wonder that the pro-renewable argument is getting laughed out of town.
      You may like to look at this post by Professor Pielke Jnr on Disaster losses & climate change.
      http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/08/disaster-losses-and-climate-change.html

      “The analysis of twenty-two disaster loss studies shows that economic losses from various weather related natural hazards, such as storms, tropical cyclones, floods, and small-scale weather events such as wildfires and hailstorms, have increased around the globe. The studies show no trends in losses, corrected for changes (increases) in population and capital at risk, that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Therefore it can be concluded that anthropogenic climate change so far has not had a significant impact on losses from natural disasters.”

      As I mentioned previously, global tropicasl cyclone rates are at a 30-year low.
      http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/08/imagine-if.html

    70. Are you quite with it?

      When I last looked it wasn’t April Fool’s day

    71. “Global Warming has indefinitely, perhaps permanently, postponed the next ice age.”

      coffee meet keyboard

    72. Jo, I was going to comment generally, but this little gem may illustrate to you that you’re not quite as clever as you think:

      “I cannot possibly comment on the shared birthdays problem. All I know is, I’ve met thousands and thousands of people in my life, and only one (or possibly two) that share my birthday. I didn’t ask everybody for their birthdate, however, so that argument probably falls down. And I met them all consecutively, rather than collectively.”

      That you think the last sentence is relevant shows that you are incapable of understanding basic maths – which would seem to call into question the rest of your rather unique theories. This perhaps explains how you can claim graphs show the exact opposite of what they plainly show.

      It’s interesting, given the ‘toe-the-line’ nature of the arguments coming from people who sound like you, that each one of them has a different, contradictory set of theories, none of which really correspond to the ‘absolutely settled science’.

      Anyway, stipulating for a moment that everything you have posited is true, there’s a major, show-stopping problem in your argument: you haven’t shown that warming of the climate through increased CO2 is a bad thing in any way. Basically, your argument seems to be that we should prevent changes that would feed an extra billion people so as to prolong the lives of a few thousand per year and prevent property damage in the rich West. Care to comment?

    73. “Wind turbines, for example, don’t take up much land space, and don’t pollute rivers and soils with any residues – unlike Coal.”

      Just a moment, Jo. Wind turbines are beyond any question the most environmentally destructive industrial energy source ever invented. Enormous swaths of countryside and wildlife habitat have already been utterly destroyed by these useless monstrosities. Farmers’ fields are chopped up by industrial-strength access roads (the turbines weigh upwards of 60 tons, and each 140-foot blade weighs around ten tons). High-tension transmission tower right-of-ways have to be constructed to get the pitiful amount of electricity the things actually produce to the population centers where it will ostensibly be used.

      All wildlife typically clears out for several miles in all directions due to the maddening low-frequency noise. Humans and livestock can’t clear out, so they are forced to live with the increased stress. Dairy cattle become less productive and miscarriages increase. Offshore turbines — the vibration from which carries much further underwater — are causing baby seals to be born dead or abandoned by their overstressed mothers at their Yorkshire breeding grounds.

      Digging and blasting for the 40-foot-deep concrete footings required is disturbing and polluting underground aquifers. Wilderness streams have been essentially destroyed by construction waste. Google Cefn Croes to see what your “clean energy” has done to Welsh moorland, or “Mars Hill” to view the wreckage of rural life in the New England mountains.

      And the electricity actually produced is negligible and basically useless because of its unreliability and skittering voltage levels. Fossil plants have to be kept on spinning standby to fill in the gaps, burning more fuel and producing more emissions than if they were simply running continuously at full power.

      Millions of acres worldwide have already been sacrificed so industrialist fat cats can collect the generous taxpayer subsidies being handed out by idiot politicians. Since when are wilderness, breathtaking natural scenery, and peaceful country lifestyle “renewable resources”?

      Wind turbine plants are not clean, anti-green, and produce no energy. Faith in them is totally delusional.

    74. Oh dear,

      I admit I only read the opening remarks of your complaint. Clearly you cannot expect to be taken seriously in a discussion such as this if you cannot even get the most basic of things correct. Climate change is a given, it happens, has always happened and will continue to happen. Climate change affects absolutely everything, it always has, it always will.

      Please if you are going to try to argue scientific matters at least get the very very basic issues correct.

      Dr P Woolfe

    75. Dear God, why do you insist on doing this Jo? are you aware that you are talking half understood garbage and making yourself look exceedingly foolish. MMGW morphed into CC some time ago to fit the ever diminishing evidence that Man had anything whatsoever to do with GW. The planet is indeed warming, no one disputes that and would be hard to dismiss the evidence that shows we are in the final stages of a post ice age warming period. It has happened many times and even many more before man appeared. There has not and never will be any evidence to show any visible human signal.
      So please, do us all a favour, find another campaign to champion that has a little more evidence of proof, like Alien kidnapping for instance

    76. Jo,

      If your lead post above and all your comments are correct, why are you so energetically posting and commenting that the so-called consensus climate scientists are correct and those who disagree with you are somehow deficient in something (like morals or educational level or intelligence or basic humanity)?

      I think you are doing it because you know that now a significant growing trend of more than half of society have lost trust with those scientists and also with the bloggers like you who apologize for them. The blatant political advocacy, confirmation bias, and doomsday exaggerations of those scientists has become common knowledge across varied levels of society. This happened despite highly dominant MSM support (until recently) of those consensus scientists. Trust lost in this manner cannot be recovered. A new group of scientists will and are right now replacing them . . . ones with better more trustworthy track records. Most of the replacements will be those who were in the past publically more skeptical.

      The way forward is going to be open – open – open and skeptical – sceptical – skeptical. If the former so-called consensus climate scientists continue to close ranks and fight off the skeptics, it just accelerates their replacement by skeptics.

      John

    77. Jo,

      Regarding birthday coincidence, see:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

      Counter-intuitively, in any random group:

      “99% probability [of a matching birthdate] is reached with a mere 57 people, and 50% probability with 23 people.”

      This is something I have been aware of for a long time, though to be frank, I have never fully grasped the maths behind it. But even so, I could if I wished test it empirically.

      There are many other fascinating odds and sods I am aware of, but even though they may be true, I can’t claim that I *know* them to be true, simply because of my own lack of expertise.

      Anyone with a fair memory for bits of information can construct all sorts of seemingly logical arguments based on relating these bits. However, even if the arguments are in and of themselves irrefutable, that will be to no avail if the bits of information, i.e. the premises, are incorrect, and the thing may be empirically untestable at the individual level.

      We all need to cultivate the general habit of questioning everything we are told, not because of a priori hostility to it, but as a habit of mind that develops the ability to think critically.

    78. I think from Jo’s original response to the “birthday” issue that she confused the issues of “someone in the group having the same birthday as herself” with the actual example of “two people in the group having the same birthday”

    79. @MichaelLarkin

      Why should anybody with an enquiring mind and a good knowledge show any resistance (you call it “a priori hostility”) to a genuinely novel, interesting piece of information ?

      Thank you for point me towards the “birthday problem” link. I hadn’t considered this for years.

      For me to follow your argument, I think it is important for you to determine for me if there is a difference in probabilities of the following two events :-

      a. Meeting in a room with 366 people and finding a person who has the same birthdate as I do (as long as I were not born on a 29th February) ?

      b. Meeting one person a day over the next year and finding one of them has the same birthdate as I do ?

      Is the following example similar or different in nature ?

      c. I reach into a bag where the twenty-six letters of the alphabet are represented once by a Scrabble tile. I pull one out. Then I put it back. I do this 26 times. Will I be certain of picking a “Z” ?

      d. I reach into a bad where the twenty-six Scrabble tiles are. I pull one out. I leave it out. I do this 26 times. Will I be certain of picking a “Z” ?

    80. Jo it is simple statistics, you are being ego centric..

      It is NOT that you will share a birthday, if you are part of a group of 23 people, but that ANY 2 peole may share the same birtday, of that group that includes you!!

    81. Jo

      Slam dunk I am afraid. The problems you set are all solved in introductory O level probability theory.

      If you do not already know how to do these, then I just do not believe that you ever achieved a degree from any institution anywhere in Physics. For example you cannot begin to understand quantum theory without a good knowledge of probability theory.

      And I have grave doubts about your likelihood of passing your MSC, even if it is in Climate Science, and the required answer to answer to every question is ‘Carbon Dioxide, funded by evil deniers, may God spit upon them for ever’

    82. Jo,

      Both of your examples are completely different from the “birthday” business because in both cases you are looking for the probability of some specific value.

      For a question more like the birthday thing, take your “c” and change the question to, “How many times would I have to do this before it is virtually certain that I pull one out that I’ve pulled out before?”

    83. “Why should anybody with an enquiring mind and a good knowledge show any resistance to a genuinely novel, interesting piece occurred information?”

      Anyone with an enquiring mind would make enquiries about novel and interesting information. Not showing any resistance implies blind belief, which is not very enquiring.

      As for a, b, c, and d:

      In b you could meet the same person more than once, so b is analogous to c. But a is not analogous to d.

      The “birthday problem” is analogous to: start with ax bag of thousands of Scrabble tiles, with an equal number of tiles of each letter, a to z. How many tiles would you have to pull out of the bag before you had a greater than 50% chance of holding two tiles of the same letter?

      I suppose each letter could represent a different kind of weather. Z might be a heat wave. Sometimes you might pull out a lot of zs in a row. This would become more likely thedc longer you continued pulling letters out of the bag. It would not he evidence for climate change.

      Of course, if someone were sneaking extra zs into your bag when you were not looking, you should be able to detect these anthropogenic zs if you keep pulling letters out for long enough.

    84. @RobFisher

      Hmmm. Interesting.

      Somebody is definitely sticking extra Z’s into the bag – and A’s and B’s, C’s and so on, as the world’s population is increasing exponentially (correct me if that’s changed recently).

      This doesn’t change the odds, of course, because the distribution of letters remains the same, because there are so many letters, but it does mean the bag is getting fatter.

      If I meet one person a day, how many people would I need to meet before one of them had the same birthday as another (or me) ? That’s almost the same as the birthday problem, but only because the total number of people is very large.

      I say “almost the same” because in the set of the world’s population the odds are accepted as being that any one person selected will have the same probability of having a particular birthday.

      But when you pick a bunch of 23, say, every new person you pick for the bunch is coming from a world set that is one smaller and so biased just a fraction.

      (Also, note : in the case that I meet one person a day, umless it’s me who meets my birthday twin, the two people who share the birthday won’t meet each other.)

      A key question in Climate Change is : at what point does the time series of experienced weather events become unable to give the same distribution profile as before ? At what point is it no longer possible to infer the same profile of weather events as previously ?

      Part of the answer to that lies in the return frequencies of certain events, such as major flooding in any one area.

      It’s like somebody’s putting only new Z’s, Y’s and X’s into the bag, but not extra A’s, B’s or C’s.

      How long do you need to sample for in seasons or months to know that the system has been loaded ?

      Think about it another way : how many countries/regions do you need to have natural diasters in, all at the same time, to know you’ve left the “normal” pattern ?

    85. Jo,

      I mentioned the birthday problem merely as a hook to link into points I made in my earlier posting. I found an explanation of the problem (excluding birthdays on 29th Feb, which trickier) in a video from the excellent Khan academy – see:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G0w61pZPig

      This is the first time I have understood how to compute the solution. Simple when you know how.

      The real issue I used this as a hook for is an epistemological one: what can you or I say we *know*? When I sit down and think about this, most of what I know for sure is what I don’t know.

      If someone comes along with a new idea, it may, as you intimate, be very interesting. But first, I want to know if it’s true. If I am able to personally verify it is so, as now in the example of the birthday problem, then it gets added to the list of things I know.

      If not, I neither accept nor reject it. It remains indeterminate, something I know I don’t know. But if it’s sufficiently interesting, I may try to ascertain the opinions of those who reject it. I will then have opinions pro- and anti-, and I may be able to spot personal biases on either side even if I still can’t say I fully understand all the ins and outs.

      I know I don’t know how CAGW can be deemed a done deal. I can’t see how anyone else can, either. Still, it may be right, but if so, I don’t think anyone knows it, otherwise they’d put it out there with crystal clarity, like the excellent Mr. Khan, and they would defend their arguments with equanimity without ever feeling the need to attack the man rather than the ball.

      It is peculiarly hard to convince many CAGW proponents not so much that they are wrong, but that they *might* be wrong that any anthropogenic element of warming in the recent past is a significant problem. That they’ll have to do a lot more convincing on that score, and that in doing so, they’ll have to actually engage with their critics rather than indulging in ad hominems.

      Why have they made their minds up? Why are they so resistant to counter-arguments? Personally, I’d feel more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt if they acknowledged the uncertainties. But the more stridently they attack contrary opinions, the more they claim inerrancy, the more my religion detectors buzz. We spent centuries as a society trying to isolate religion from science, but here we appear to have what may be science dressed in a chasuable.

      To be fair, it isn’t restricted to CAGW. There are areas of cosmology, particularly Big Bang theory, which are barely disguised metaphysics; where mathematical models of the universe have been mistaken for what’s actually out there. If an observation gainsays the model, then some ad-hoc adjustment will be made to it – such as inflation, dark matter and energy, whatever is needed to keep the model rather than reject theory and start again. Cosmologists are taking us into fantasy realms, and my suspicion is that climate scientists are doing the same thing. If so, it’s just the latest episode in the Ptolemaic epicycle saga.

    86. “My projection for this winter is based on my conjecture that the problems in the Arctic region will have been more in evidence this Northern Summer than they will this coming Northern Winter. I project a very wet Northern Winter for much of Northern Europe, Central Europe and the American Eastern Seaboard. I think the Typhoon season (which unlike the Hurricane Season has seen increased activity) will be stronger for longer this year than in the last decade. Also, I think there will be a lot of unusually strong rainfall in places you would not normally expect it, like parts of Italy, Greece and Turkey and Northern Africa. But that is pure conjecture, so feel free to correct me. I think it is very likely that the parts of North West England that suffered so much rain last year will receive more this year, and also parts of Scotland, particularly the West :-”

      Epic fail or what!!!

      Why don’t you try reading up about the effects of the sun on our systems. Nature, unlike climate scientists, does not ignore this particular input.

    Leave a reply