Pingo

I have not mentioned names or jobs, though I know them, and know exactly how to get those individuals with their universities involved. They are not sleeping well, I can guarantee you that. Their VCs are already involved, that's all I can say right now, let's just say there will be more stories coming out very soon. Good times.

If this discussion is not going to be a discussion of the science, then it should be promptly closed as a discussion. I'm sure those 50 days to save the world have already passed and the world is fine thank you. What do you do when your scare has passed?

Right, we're taking this outside I'm very serious about this scientific incident because we need to realise there are a large amount of hoaxers and fraudsters trying to fleece us. Science requires people to assess the quality of the research and I am distraught that the likes of M*&^ and J^%$£ and Cho)(*&^%$ have trashed the scientific process. I am completely in favour of science. I am not in favour of the trashing of science and hiding data and methods.

I have listened to you, but am still sure that oil is a distraction to this discussion. Global cooling looks to have started, and we are seeing whether it continues. Global warming, well as for that, I can't think of a single sensible person who thinks we're going to notice any of that for a decade or two.

You'd better hide that decline.

No, we don't have a quick decrease in global temperatures yet. It could mean that GHG effects are large and solar minimum effects are also large. It could mean they are both small. It could mean climate is on a random walk. Do we really know? No. So let's not trash our economies.

It's nice Old Snowy to meet someone who has researched the history of Pacific islands properly

That is why I avoid discussions of oil, thanks for agreeing with me that such discussions are irrelevant. The science is all I am interested in, and it seems most people agree with me. The global cooling that continues is something we need to discuss, and approach in a scientific manner.

The Himalayan Glaciers are an interesting one. Basically if they start to melt, it's dangerous because there will be no water for the Indians to bathe in. So they mustn't melt. And then the Indians will be able to bathe forevermore, of course.

There is of course no evidence for this. Computer models are unfortunately missing about 97% of climate variability. Until we can explain the weather, we can't explain why climate changes. If there is a theory that winter storms have worsened, then all that is needed is an empirical study assessing wind speed, depth of pressure, etc - you know, the usual things people do when doing a proper statistical study; rather than the way climate scientists go about things with a pre-determined conclusion in mind. I'd happily take part.

I'm here to discuss the vagaries of climate science. What are you here for?

I'd therefore like to see evidence from the meteorological or climatological authorities that they can do better than the toss of a coin. So far the evidence is nil. In fact, it's worse than that.

Yes there is not yet a significant decline. But the incline is certainly not there. This falsifies the alarmist climate models. I completely agree that SSTs are more important than air temperatures. You should seek out the thoughts of Stephen Wilde who can discuss the thermodynamics of oceanic-atmospheric interaction better than I can, and who has ascertained that the oceans and certainly not the air have determined the ice extent of the Arctic in recent years.

Sounds to me like these "scientists" didn't have a clue so needed to pin the change on something, which given the fashionable XFactor-ish desire for any old excuse decided to go for climate change. The XFactor Sheep. Suppose it's nothing to do with dominance among the male sheep who wanted smaller female sheep. Never mind investigating anything at all, it just has to be climate change because the scientists concerned can't be arsed getting out of their office in London to do some proper science.

Tuvalu will always be near sea level due to the nature of its bedrock. Same withthe Ganges delta. The delta will always flood every now and then, but then miraculously redeem itself and new settlements will appear, because lo and behold living in fertile areas and flood plains are fertile areas. Nothing to see here, please AGWers avert your gaze and stop rubbernecking, it's what has always happened.

Exactly. The remaining supples of oil are irrelevant to this forum.

So the climate is totally predictable? Interesting insight.

We are fairly sure that if you look around the world hard enough you will find something unprecedented in every corner. I've a casino just round the corner and their roulette just span in 3 reds followed by 2 blacks followed by 4 reds - I'm told that hasn't happened in the 60 years they've been open.

Aha, realpolitik. The easy excuse The problem is that this is a climate science forum, and not a national strategic policy forum. If you want to discuss that I'm sure there are plenty of forums out there for you. The science behind AGW is very dodgy, and should not be relied on to solve other problems.

AGW was not derived for political reasons originally. It was derived because Hansen truly believed in it. That was the problem. Scientists should never truly believe in their own hypothesis. He went out of his way to prove it. He then got green stalwarts like Hulme, Jones, Schidt and Mann to carry the flag. They kind of believed it to begin with, but then it morphed into something that "believed" in order to further their career. They then bullied subordinates to follow them. The train was then in motion with no brakes. PhD students came and went knowing that they couldn't disagree without their career being hammered. So we got to where we are now. AGW "consensus" science where no-one dares disagree as they'd lose their career and ability to appear in supposedly prestigious journals. The worm has now turned though. Jones and Mann are now d******d throughout climate science, and no-one dare trust them. That so much is clear. See Von Storch or Zorita's recent statements. We are at a watershed. AGW is going down.

I'm not sure I understand this comment. I've not been at these forums long so forgive me if I miss an inside comment. Arctic sea ice is very volatile, and has been growing significantly the last two years.

It's just a hoax. Global temperatures have been in decline since either 1998 or 1992 depending on how you correct for Mt Pinatubo, so there's no way you can have warmth-driven ice loss. Either there is no ice-loss, or there is ice-loss and it is unconnected with any global warming. Either way, it's something we can do nothing about. Antarctic sea ice extent hit record maximum last year, which should bring some balance to this alarmist story. Arctic ice has also been expanding in rapid fashion the last two winters. Just the facts.

My first recollection of the CC debate is seeing a very early Climate Audit page called "Update the Proxies". It showed that the proxies used to try to deduce historic temperatures had not been updated for decades. I then spent many night shifts and evenings in the pub with 100s of pages of science documents reading up. It seemed the most recent updated of the "proxies" showed they weren't even proxies at all. They were just noise. That made me a sceptic. I did economics with applied statistics at university so the proxy data was fascinating to me as previously I had to rely on fabricated, synthetic examples of econometric data to play with but now I had real world data and real world data problems to grapple with. I could see that serious issues were being downplayed by the "hockey team" as they called themselves. I'm still fascinated by the statistics of climate. Most statistical advances are made in econometrics, as like with climate, economics is another field where you can not plan and hold an experiment. You have sparse data. So methods of analysis need to be very precisely chosen, otherwise bias can be imparted to your data. Cimate scientists have not realised this, choosing instead to pick the implest data analysis methods they can, and sometimes picking the one that gives them the answer they wanted. That is not how science or stats is done.

Some of the bolded quotes in the post above mine are truly disgraceful. In my line of work, I always present my data because if I have made a mistake I would rather it get spotted before rash decisions are made based on it. It seems though that the UEA types wanted those rash decisions to be made before the data could be investigated. The question to be asked is why were they so desperate for the rash decisions to be made before the science was properly investigated. I can't answer that yet.

I agree with this. Climate may have fluctuated wildly in the past but AGW can still occur. Climate may have been much warmer in the past but AGW could still be an issue. However it seems to be the method of operation of the AGW types that climate can not be seen to have fluctuated in the past, nor can it be seen to have been warmer in the past, because today's temperature/change must be seen as unprecedented. I don't undertand this. If they would be honest about historical temperatures they would get more trust. The lies about the hockey stick etc are unnecessary and counterproductive to the cause of getting us to acknowledge a catastrophic climatic crisis. Just one last thing to say, I admire your deprecation for admitting being associated with UEA.