James Delingpole Warmly Invited

would that be climate change (natural) scepticism?

Or man made climate change scepticism?

Or catastropic, unprecedented man made climate change scepticism?

ALL sceptics believe in climate change (4 billion years worth)

Please do not keep mixing them all up, it just confuses the debate (deliberately it would seem)

Regards

Barry

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : IF ANYONE’S CONFUSED, DEAR, IT’S YOU. CLIMATE CHANGE, AS WE ALL RECOGNISE, HAS BEEN A FACT OF LIFE FOR MILLIONS, IF NOT BILLIONS OF YEARS. WHAT THE SCIENCE HAS ALERTED US TO IS THE FACT THAT HUMANS HAVE BEEN INTERFERING WITH THE NATURAL CYCLE OF CLIMATE, AND THAT OUR ACTIONS ARE TIPPING THE CLIMATE INTO A STATE THAT HASN’T BEEN EXPERIENCED SINCE…PERHAPS BEFORE LIFE ITSELF BEGAN. THE NEW CLIMATE STATE COULD BE INHOSPITABLE TO ALL LIFE ON EARTH. THAT’S NOT A VERY ENTERTAINING THOUGHT. ]

Sorry forgot something..

Barry Woods BSc MSc

😉

Sad (“your comment was too short”) Right, sad, sad, sad. Will that do?

Barry Woods cries:
“Guardian – well they will NOT let me say anything on comment is free..”

Call me a denialist if you like Barry but I reckon your claim is a hoax.

You can post on CiF simply by signing up and typing away – if you get banned for being an idiot, just open a new account and start typing away again.

Regular readers of CiF will have noticed someone keeps signing up to flog cheap Nikes and I myself have 2 CiF usernames.

Barry – you’re like a teenager claiming it’s impossible to find free popcorn on the internets. But it is not impossible – it’s really, really easy.

WHAT THE SCIENCE HAS ALERTED US TO IS THE FACT THAT HUMANS HAVE BEEN INTERFERING WITH THE NATURAL CYCLE OF CLIMATE, AND THAT OUR ACTIONS ARE TIPPING THE CLIMATE INTO A STATE THAT HASN’T BEEN EXPERIENCED SINCE…PERHAPS BEFORE LIFE ITSELF BEGAN. THE NEW CLIMATE STATE COULD BE INHOSPITABLE TO ALL LIFE ON EARTH. THAT’S NOT A VERY ENTERTAINING THOUGHT

I do feel sorry for you if you really believe that.

Jo, please calm down.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I’M QUITE CALM, BARRY, DEAR, BUT THANKS FOR CARING ABOUT MY STATE OF MIND. ]

I am also not confused… [ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : YOU SEEM QUITE CLEARHEADED. WHEN I SUGGESTED YOU ARE CONFUSED, I WAS TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT YOU HAVE COME TO THE WRONG CONFUSED CONCLUSIONS. ]

I am sure I know as much or more about the science as you do.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO A CONTEST WITH YOU ABOUT WHO HAS THE LARGER BRAIN OR MEMORISED SET OF INFORMATION. ]

I definetly know more about moddeling complex non-linear chaotic systems in computers than you do..

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I WOULDN’T BE SO SURE ABOUT THAT, MY FRIEND. I HAVE, IN A PAST LIFE, BEEN A PROCESS CONTROL ENGINEER, WHICH INVOLVED QUITE A LOT OF MODELLING AND TREND ANALYSIS USING COMPUTERS. I HAVE WRITTEN COMPUTER PROGRAMMES IN C, JAVA, ORACLE PL/SQL AND EVEN FORTRAN ! ]

I could choose to hang about sceptic website, as you could choose to hang around RealClimate.

But that does not make a reasonable debate, just descends into political point scoring.

If you read working group 1 reports, the problems here are very much recognised by the IPCC scientists.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I HAVE READ A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF BOTH THE THIRD AND FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORTS FROM THE IPCC. THE PROBLEMS RECOGNISED IN THESE REPORTS ARE THE REAL AND EMERGING PROBLEMS WITH CLIMATE CHANGE, AND SHOW CONVINCINGLY THAT MOST OF THIS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES, TO A CONFIDENCE LEVEL OF ABOUT 90%. ]

The problem is politicians do not understand the , if, but, coulds, maybes of science. and it is all turned into we ARE going to melt soundbite. of course whilst flying the world in their private jets.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : POLITICIANS HAVE SOME GOOD ADVISERS WHO UNDERSTAND THAT STATISTICS IS DIFFICULT FOR MANY PEOPLE AND WHO SPEND A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT FINDING WAYS TO COMMUNICATE RISK AND UNCERTAINTY. ]

even Phil Jones has said that the current period of warming is not unprecedented, also that the rate of warming is not unprecedented. The earth has been warmer before, and warmed quicker before all naturally..

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : YOU ARE MISQUOTING AND MISINTERPRETING WHAT PHIL JONES HAS SAID. DO SOME MORE RESEARCH INTO WHAT THE PHRASE “STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT” MEANS. IT IS TRUE THAT THE CLIMATE HAS CHANGED IN THE PAST. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT WARMING PERIODS IN EARTH’S HISTORY HAVE SOMETIMES BEEN SHARP AND FAST AND FURIOUS. ALL OF THESE PERIODS HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH MASS EXTINCTIONS AND OTHER SIMILAR LIFE-THREATENING PROBLEMS. CURRENT GLOBAL WARMING IS “UNPRECEDENTED” IN THAT IT DEFIES ALL THE NORMAL EXPLANATIONS – AND THE ONLY FACTOR THAT IS LARGE ENOUGH TO AFFECT THIS KIND OF CHANGE IS TAKING FOSSIL FUELS OUT OF THE GROUND AND BURNING THEM.
]
I rember when we were in a cooling period, and the media and scientific papers – (Nature included)were gettin over excited about an approcahing little ice age.. ie is the human race cursed to folllow it is geting colder, extrapolate linearlly into the future – we are all going to freeze….

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : IN THE 1970s THERE WERE SOME WHO THOUGHT THAT THE GULF STREAM WOULD STOP UNDER A SCENARIO OF GLOBAL WARMING, AND THAT THIS COULD TRIGGER A NEW ICE AGE. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, MANY SCIENTISTS PROJECTED THE GLOBAL WARMING STORY AS RESULTING IN EXTREME HEATING TERMS. IN FACT, IF YOU READ UP ABOUT THE SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING YOU WILL FIND THAT SCIENTISTS HAVE PREDICTED WARMING EVER SINCE THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT WAS DISCOVERED AND FOSSIL FUEL BURNING WAS PROJECTED TO INCREASE CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE. THAT’S BEEN SINCE AROUND 150 YEARS AGO. ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING HAS BEEN PREDICTED AND EVIDENCED FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS. ]

Followed by it’s warming up again, extrapolate linearlly into the future – we are all going to fry..

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : IF YOU HAD REALLY READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE IPCC FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT YOU WOULD KNOW THAT IT IS NON-LINEAR TRENDS THAT ARE THE PROBLEMATIC ONES – SUCH AS RETENTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE CAUSING CONTINUED WARMING LONG AFTER EMISSIONS MAY HAVE DROPPED. ]

Even now, the ‘scientits’ and the acknowledege climate science is not settled that their are many unknowns, say we can’t explain it (the climate) it ‘must’ be human.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THE UNKNOWNS THAT EXIST IN CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE ARE BASED AROUND THE RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES FOR THE FUTURE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF MANKIND STOPS CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS, THEN THE SITUATION COULD RECOVER IN A SHORT SPACE OF TIME – AROUND 300 YEARS. OR IT MIGHT NOT. THE FACT OF HUMANKIND-INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING IS NO LONGER UNDER DEBATE. THE SCIENCE HAS MOVED ON FROM THAT QUESTION. THE QUESTIONS NOW ARE CENTRED AROUND : IS CLIMATE CHANGE SERIOUS OR EXTREMELY NASTY ? ]

Any scientist will recognise that is a position of ignorance, which will actually prevent any body looking for any other explanation. If their was ANY actual human signatiure due to CO2 identified by now, I’m sure it would be shouted from the rooftops.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : THE HUMAN SIGNATURE IN GLOBAL WARMING FROM CARBON DIOXIDE HAS BEEN SHOUTED FROM THE ROOFTOPS – THE IPCC FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT IS ONE SUCH LOUD VOICE. ]

‘Must’ is the issue.

I thought wehad progressedfrom the middlke ages as a species. the crops are failing, we don’t know why, it ‘must’ be witches, burn the witches!

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : AND YOUR RESPONSE TO THE INCREDIBLY WEIGHTY AND WELL-RESEARCHED BODY OF CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE IS TO ATTEMPT TO BURN THE EVIDENCE ? ]

If, for arguments sake, man made CO2 was the problem why is every politician, corpoartion doing exatcly the wrong thing.. you should be fighting them, not sceptical member of the public..

ie bio fuels..
Bio fuels may be more sustainable than oil. ie you can grow it..

But IT produces just as much CO2 when you burn it!!!. I though we were supposed to be reducing CO2..

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I AGREE THAT SOME BIOFUELS ARE NOT CLOSED-LOOP FUELS – AND THAT SOME EMIT MORE THAN THEY EMBEDDED WHILST GROWING. SEE BIOFUELWATCH FOR DETAILS. ]

sustainability is another (important) issue but it has nothing to do with the CO2 debate.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : SUSTAINABILITY OF THE HUMAN RACE AND A HABITAT SUITABLE FOR LIFE IS VERY MUCH A PART OF THE CARBON DIOXIDE PROBLEM. ]

Biofuels, when you take into account the energy of production, etc (note who is producing the biofuels – no other than ‘Big Oil’ – who are making billions) produce more co2 than oil. especially if it encourages people to use it more becaus it is ‘Green’.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : EXXONMOBIL, BP AND OTHERS ARE ATTEMPTING TO BAMBOOZLE THEIR CUSTOMERS WITH TALES OF GREEN FUELS, I AGREE. THIS IS GREENWASH, PURE AND SIMPLE. ]

Think Al Gore, Tony Blair, Obama flying around the world in the co2 emmiting private jets – buit its ok because it is bio fuel..

This shows the ignorance of politicians, JUSTas MUCH co2 is being emmited.

And yet, because of Bio fuels, hundreds of millions of the world’s poor are in food poverty, because the price of grain has doubled or tripled because of so called ‘green bio fuels’

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : INDEED : THERE HAVE BEEN FOOD RIOTS AND SHORTAGES AROUND THE WORLD. SOME OF THAT HAS BEEN CAUSED BY THE BIOFUEL PROBLEM – DIVERTING FOOD FROM PEOPLE TO ENGINE TANKS. HOWEVER, PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH FOOD SHORTAGES IS CLIMATE CHANGE – AS IT HAS BEEN AFFECTING HARVESTS. CHECK THE DATA. IT’S ALL ONLINE. ]

And of course the EU is sanctiioning the destruction of the bio diversity of pristine rainforests, to grow monoculture bio fuels!!!

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : IT IS INDEED A SORRY TALE ABOUT HOW THE EU HAS CREATED MARKETS IN RAINFOREST DESTRUCTION IN AID OF WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY A GOOD IDEA. BIOFUELS WERE SUPPOSED TO COME FROM RAPESEED OIL, GROWN IN EUROPE ITSELF. BUT IT WAS CONSIDERED A BIT EXPENSIVE, SO BUSINESS DEALS WITH MALAYSIS, INDONESIA AND SO ON WERE CONDUCTED, AND THAT STARTED THE PALM OIL DESECRATION – ALL FOR CHEAP STOCKS OF OIL FOR BIODIESEL. A TRAGEDY ! ]

that is beyond satire, beyond farce.. and very sad to an old environmenatlist..

A 45 trillion carbon economy is around the corner, the multinationals, big corporations, ‘BIG ENERGY’, lots of bankers getting very excited, hedgefunds, ‘carbon offests, carbon trading – almost designed for fraud – (oh they were – enron invented it) by the money mking opportunities, and governments (tax rises – because we are saving the planet – how can a voter disagree with that)
None of it will reduce CO2 in the slightest, the elite rich will just get richer, the worlds poor will suffer, you and I will pay a few moretaxes, we will survive.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : LIKE YOU, I DO NOT LIKE THE CARBON TRADING PROPOSALS. THE WEALTHY WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE MONEY. SAME AS IT EVER WAS. AND IN POINT OF FACT, IT’S BASED ON SOME VERY BAD ASSUMPTIONS, INCLUDING THAT POOR COUNTRIES WHO DON’T CREATE MUCH IN TERMS OF CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS HAVE TO CUT THEIR EMISSIONS IN ORDER TO TRADE. THE IDEA THAT ALL THE CARBON EMISSIONS OF THE GLOBAL NORTH CAN BE OFFSET BY CUTS IN CARBON EMISSIONS OF THE GLOBAL SOUTH IS RIDICULOUS. ]

So if you really believe that we are all doomed, join this sceptical person in lobbying government, etc. that what they are doing is NOT going to solve the problem.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I AGREE THAT CARBON TRADING OR CARBON TAXATION WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. WHAT IS REQUIRED IS REAL CHANGES IN THE ENERGY SUPPLY SYSTEMS. WE HAVE TO DE-CARBONISE THE ENERGY SUPPLY, STARTING BY REGULATING THE LARGE ENERGY COMPANIES TO DIVERSIFY OUT OF OIL, GAS AND COAL. ]

As I said, I have many friends in climate research ( one even has a % of climategate emails in their name) I have friends/relatives that are senior greens.

I am trying to get across to them, don’t wake up in ten years time and think – ‘What have we done!!’ when the penny drops are the sceptics were proved right on the above issues – how many millions wil have starved.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : WE CAN END POVERTY AND STOP THE GLOBAL WARMING CATASTROPHE, BY CONVERTING ALL ENERGY SUPPLY TO NON-CARBON SOURCES. RENEWABLE ENERGY CAN BE WHAT BRINGS ENERGY TO THE GLOBAL SOUTH AND CREATES A SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ECONOMY. MERELY TRADING IN CARBON PERMITS WON’T MAKE THIS CHANGE HAPPEN. ]

I can sit around the dinner table with these people, look after each others young children.

Yet the debate I get into when I try to discuss things with ‘believers’ is I am an enemym, deliuded, big oil funded deniar..

Which is appalling.

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : YOU ARE NOT AN ENEMY. YOU ARE SIMPLY MISGUIDED. START READING REALCLIMATE, CLIMATEPROGRESS, SKEPTICALSCIENCE, CLIMATECHANGENEWS, DESMOGBLOG, DELTOID SCIENCE BLOGS, CROCK OF THE WEEK AND GOOGLE NEWS. THEN YOU WILL FIND YOUR HEAD SPUN BACK ROUND TO THE FRONT AGAIN, SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE YOU ARE GOING. ]

jo that is the problem…

Why have ghetto of view points..

Why can’t members of the public, post dissenting views (not rude, not abusive, etc) on the Guardian ( I do still buy it for other articles 2-3 time a week) or the tory party.

I would love to discuss thing with you, I am sure we would agree on 95% of environmental issue. As I do with my other green friends/relatives..

When like minded people all stick together to discuss their viewpoint, they just descend into ‘groupthink’.

I geuinely do NOT fear for my childrens future due to catastrophic, man made global warming. I am confident in my understanding of the IPCC are the science. if you look at working group 1, it is much further awaw, from the synthesis report.

I just think that there is lots of REAL, stuff to worry about in the environment and politics, NOW and in the future, that is getting completely ignored, because of one over hyped scientific theory..

I don’t mean to hijack your blog.

If you would like to chat – somewhere neutral..

Try Richard Blacks Earthwatch blog.
I am there under my real name.

You will see that I am annoyed with the BBC, but I do try to explain why.

The moderators are much more neutral now (I believe they had a number of complaints about ‘over moderation’ post/pre copenhagen, and they do allow all viewpoints now.

Best Regards

Barry

try reading working group report 1 – the science..

the others are the politics.

for the record, but as you mentioned it, yours or mine does not really matter..

Except it does explain, the comp science bit, why I’m so annoyed about climategate, especially harry_read_me.txt

Me:
BSc Applied Chemistry (Polymer-carbon mj)
Msc Information Systems Engineering.(cybernetics)

10 years plus IT industry, telco/banking mainly..

Languages, industry horror stories, yep been there as well, c, c++, prolog!! fortran, and many more.

So I have learnt my computer science in a computer science dept at post grad level and in major industry, with business critical realtime live systems. Where the joys and issues surrounding complex chaotic modelling of no linear dynamic systems was made clear…

Unlike at CRU (or the banking world, who just tried to model risk in computer systems – and look where that just got us 😉 )

There are a number of orgnaisation that have warned about the problems of computer code in science..

Me I have a problem with the certain programmers that made such a mess of the had crut code that they struggle to reproduce their own results, and make Hadcrut 3.0 ( I’m sure you know the implications ie the pre eminnent global data set – the usa just said hadcrut is better?!)

What does qualify a former geography student from Oxford,(the missing Tim – in the harry file) to write all that code. Did he get any training, did his colleagues, in a small dept in east anglia, know anything about version control, data integrity, quality control, etc, or why it was so important to do it. let alone quality control sanity cjechking of the code.

If you have ever done any IT for government projects the methodologies, quality, audit processes etc are copious, yet climate science had passed these all by.

A software audit, on the basis of the code released, and the harry file would find things lacking…
If so much money is going to be spent on all this… give them the resources of some proper professional software companies..

NASA and the EU software teams sent a spacecarft to miss a comet, because a mix up between software teams (one decimal one imperial !) Yet hadcrut, has just a few postgrad researchers writing their own code..

Maybe that is why they would not release their code. It was in such a mess..

Actuallly, they admit that it is in the climategate emails..

You have had a look at them all, in context?
Climategate – crutape letters – Mosher/Fuller
Have you read Harry_Read_me.txt

As, the implications of a carbon economy get more ‘real’ to the general public, harder and harder questions will get asked.

Foia2009.zip, is out there (think of it as if every memeber of the public had immediate internet access to MP’s expenses)

Until now, most people have been far to polite to ask questions of those agw believers, not least because it was made non PC to do so. All that was necessary to close down debate, was ‘think of the polar bears’, ‘your children’s future’ or ‘the planets’. you evil sceptic you. and most people shut up..

Not any more, yet the believers still think this tactic will work

I got cross because of that Copenhagen conference video, showing a small child runing from a tidal wave, screaming.

No CO2 tidal wave is ever going to do that – sea level rises (a shocking use of recent tsunami memories CGI, to echo recent memories of boxing day disaster, when 250,000 real people died).
It was pure ‘unscientific’ propaganda and yes my 5 year old had nightmares about that child.
Plenty of time to get out of the IPCC tidal waves way, I told her. (even IF true, just another dodgy computer model)

Then of course Robert Mugabe popped up as well.

But the good news is, it was all a popular AGW delusion,(see extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds – pub 1860) and we parents just have all the other things left to worry about in the world.

Sorry for the long comment..

Maybe I should start my own blog. You have inspired me. You will be welcome anytime.

Best Regards

Barry

“THE NEW CLIMATE STATE ‘COULD’ BE INHOSPITABLE TO ALL LIFE ON EARTH”

its ridiculous fear mongering blanket statements like that which mean james was probably better off not going to your meeting in the first place.

the sun ‘could’ explode tomorrow but you will excuse me for not living my life around that. climates always change but i dont think we are capable yet of truly testing the level of our input. the planet will often find ways to find a balance again.

Barry, we met on one or two of the Mailonline blogs a few weeks ago (I asked did you work for Eastern Gas). I support what you have posted here and invite all to pay a visit to my blog “Global Political Shenanigans” at http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/ where I have a few articles on Climategate and the “independent” reviews that took place.

You may also be interested in taking a look at Jo’s thread at https://www.joabbess.com/2010/05/30/climate-change-robust-findings/comment-page-1/#comment-1827 where I’ve posted a comment. If it hasn’t appeared there yet then you can also see it at http://www.bloggernews.net/124669#comment-1661707

Best regards, Pete Ridley