Roo

BIG, painful, hail! Just got pelted in the cause of fetching my 3 1/2 year old some of it.......

It does exist: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/environment/2...2008/090520.htm and it has Hans Schueder's submissions minuted. However, as there are 30-odd submissions made to the CC committee, and any of us has a right to make a submission ( Any organisation or individual with an interest is invited to submit written evidence) to such a committee, I'm not sure what this shows? That someone with an agenda (of whatever sort) is allowed to make an unqualified statement to a, relatively minor, committee? And no, Wilson is not on the Climate Change committee, but it works for him.... http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/environment/2...nvirhome_07.htm

How interesting! We had 7 or 8 sitting on the ceanothus in the garden on Bank holiday monday: I had assumed they had just hatched! What a fantastic thing to think that they had come all that way EDIT: Just checked James M's butterfly conservation link and, as well as the weekend, they also want people to record whenever they see them, even if it's already happened. Have just added mine and it would seem that BH monday was Hertfordshire's butterfly day!!!

Just to clarify, Oetzi is thought to have been initially injured/attacked on the lower slopes and then fled upwards into the snow being pursued by his attacker (almost certainly one individual). There is NO evidence to suggest there had been multiple individuals involved in combat at high altitude (or at low altitude for that matter). It is almost certain that Oetzi was a loner, experienced in travelling large distances, possibly as a shepherd. The theory with the strongest backing is that he fled to higher up as he knew it was a risky thing to do: no-one would follow him as it was certain to lead to death. Oetzi, being an experienced (and well equipped) traveller risked it as he had nothing to lose. Unfortunately, someone did follow him and picked him off: the single arrow wound severing a major blood vessel and causing him to die very quickly. There is no evidence that any arrow was ever removed from him: he had one projectile still lodged in his shoulder and a number of trauma wounds consistent with hand to hand combat with one individual prior to the fatal arrow. There is a fantastic online resource now available at: http://www.archaeologiemuseum.it/en/oetzi-the-iceman

What a fantastic program that was (as have all three been).....I actually watched it with my 3 1/2 year old who thought it was great (I fast forwarded over the death from avalanche bits!). We both loved watching them growing snow (what a great way to make a living). Also nice to see my old town of Lewes, and especially Cliffe, getting a mention again, even if it was for yet more meteorological disaster. Incidentally, when I first moved to Cliffe I wondered why the pub was called the Snow Drop.... and yes, it's because of the avalanche!

My goodness. I'm really shocked and will definitely be listening. The skeptics were right all along. Let's just hope the press conference is over by midday, eh?

And I thought it was to aid with opening coconuts when on foreign expeditions..... You live and learn, eh?

I prefer to have my discussions in the open. I rest my case. And this affects the scientific evidence how? Clearly I have. I've seen page after page of blog, newspaper article and secondary reference. Would dearly love to see all the skeptical peer reviewed papers. So, leading on from that, would you claim to know more than the hundreds of IPCC scientists in consensus? If you do then that is arrogance in the extreme, and if you don't, how can you ever claim that their theories are wrong? Not at all. It's just that sometimes, after having done this for the gazillionth time, I feel that I probably should stop for the sake of my own sanity. The climate threads are not about understanding the truth. They are about using conspiracy, misunderstanding, a little bit of knowledge and an awful lot of slander to try to diminish studies which not one person here truly understands nor has the knowledge to comprehend. They are unable to dismiss the science of AGW, but they can throw huge quantities of internet rubbish at it...... I am just the latest one in a long line to realise that and that is why I won't be posting here anymore.

Oh come on Chris....you're just wriggling cos I caught you out! You have been trying to suggest all along that the IPCC scientists were bureaucrats as there was no way of proving otherwise, even if TWS knew some of them not to be. You know it, I know it. And the fact of the matter is it is very easy to prove, with a little research, that they are not. [And now before I get drawn into all this again, I'm off]

I've just seen this and I can't let that go! I have NO entrenched view as regards climate change. As far as I know myself, it could be the sun, the wind, farting cows or spacemen with hairdryers. I have no way to evaluate the hard core science because I am not a hard core scientist. I'm not so daft as to think I understand it and I respect the qualification and training of those who do. But, what I am entrenched about is good research and evidence and as far as I can see that balance comes down well and truly on the AGW side. If all that the skeptics can offer is a series of non-peer reviewed diatribes about AGW scientists then I think I'll stay where I am until some reasoned and supported evidence comes from the skeptical side. If it does then I'll be happy to move, Heck, I don't want global warming. Any excuse to believe it wasn't true would be great. However, no-one has yet shown me anything which could disprove the general findings of the IPCC and what's more, alot of the skeptic stuff that has been shown is either inaccurate, badly researched or inaccurately related. The majority of the skeptical argument relies on scientific corruption, fiddling, ignoring the sun, ignoring volcanoes, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah: NONE of which I can find any evidence of, nor has anyone ever offered any solid proof of. Therefore, on the balance of good research and consensual probability, I'm with the AGW scientists.

Nooooooo, no, no. Just trying to to get past the sloppy throw away lines within this thread to what lies beneath. The original post (not yours, I admit) cited a report which described the scientists as bureaucrats. You then suggested that TWS could not know whether they were or not. I have just suggested that actually, there is NO evidence to suggest that any of the IPCC scientists are bureaucrats and in fact a lot that suggests otherwise.

OK...let me put it this way: Find me one, just one, from that list who is a bureaucrat? If so many are, this should be easy......

The list of the WG1 authors: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-ar4/wg1/wg1authors.pdf along with the organisations they represent.....(see page 16 of below PDF link) http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/a...wg1-annexes.pdf So please do show us which of these recognised scientists are bureaucrats??? Edited: to add details of authors from IPCC, not Wiki

Or a pilot who discovered Jeffrey Archer was onboard and wanted to meet the captain?

Yes. Because quite honestly, my life is too short for that kind of nastiness, be it in real life or in cyberspace. As far as I remember, this was not about winning a debate, but was about trying to find out about climate change. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As I have said ad infinitum, the parameters of debate need to be set before this can be anything meaningful. You cannot debate secondarily reported material (e.g. newspaper articles, most blogs, websites, etc, etc). To debate this you must come at it from peer reviewed material and primary data. And you must have a good understanding of it all to be able to relevantly apply it and critically examine it. And that is the key... It's all very well saying that if I understand maths or chemistry then x and y must be true. However, without knowing all the parameters, rules, theories and methods used by the scientists and without having their equipment, knowledge base and background, how can any of us say that we truly understand? They are trained for a reason. They spent years and years getting their knowledge to the point that it is at....how can we, with a few back of the envelope calculations, ever suggest to dismiss everything they have done. It's just plain arrogant and it amazes me. Discussions of political peripherals, etc then fine, but of the hard science? No, not unless we can show why and where they have gone wrong. Chapter and verse. Until I see even a single peer-reviewed paper refuted line by line, then I'm sorry, I don't accept the argument. Just throwing around vitriolic blogs and nonsensically reported third hand papers will not do. But this is the same old ride going round and round and, like many others before me, it's time I got off.

I have already stopped posting, but just wanted to add my support to Dev's statement. If your only defence is accusations of corruption and fiddling, then that says a lot about the basis of your argument. As has been shown so many times before, there is NO evidence to support this. To justify this as 'ad homs are just ad homs' is a way of ignoring the responsibility of politeness that we all have to each other. As Pete has suggested, there is a basic principle of innocent until proven guilty, but that does not appear to apply if scientists are the topic of debate and, as John Holmes said elsewhere, the kinds of nasty and personal comment emanating from several individuals can only reflect badly on NW. That to me is a great shame.

An interesting paper out today which is trying to identify ways of monitoring the effects of climate change on the bird populations of Europe: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10...al.pone.0004678

And this from someone who I had to block and speak to the mods about as he kept sending me vile and insulting PMs? I am going VP, but I will not let you call me a bully as I am nothing of the kind. You, however, are: if anyone does not do as you say then hell breaks loose and you are allowed to say whatever you want, no matter how insulting. And as for moving people gently forward and sharing your knowledge: what hideous arrogance. The phrase 'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing' springs to mind.

Yes and if we can't set the parameters of acceptable evidence within the discussion then what point is there? Anyone can trawl up a website or a newspaper article: neither are science or evidence. All the while this kind of trash floats around on here then there is no point boning up on the science as even the best and most qualified scientist/mathematician will be hit with the conspiracy and lies/common sense/personal belief, etc, etc argument which leaves all reasonable discussion impossible. You can't have it both ways.

It's all right VP, I will. Soon they'll be no-one in the NW pool to disagree with you and you can be the big fish you've always wanted to be. Maybe this will make you feel better. I do hope so.

This is vile. Stop it. What does it help? VP: No-one can know everything and some, despite trying, cannot understand postgraduate level maths: that's why we don't all do it. Not because we don't want to, but because we can't. My partner is one of the brightest physicists of his generation but can he get his head round sociological concepts? Like heck he can. Nor does he have to as there are others better at it than he is who can do it for him and guide him through the synthesis of their combined learning. I know you refuse to see it, but there is a reason for specialisation....we can't all be experts of everything to it's highest level no matter how much we might want to be. Even if the human brain was big enough, there just is not enough hours in the day to keep up to date on all current theories and research in every single subject. To pretend this comes down to arrogance or an unwillingness to learn is crazy. We trust to experts, teachers, lecturers, specialists, trained individuals, whatever you want to call them in EVERY other area of our lives. To do so in the sphere of climate change is not weird, strange or wrong. It is utterly reasonable.

I'm guessing because the numbers of cars, planes, people, power stations, etc, etc, don't appear either. Also the big thing as far as I can see is that we are not cooling. OK we may not be rapidly warming, but we're not cooling either, no matter what weird and wonderful natural cooling events have happened. We are still on the upward trajectory and that's what makes me concerned.

Lovely pics. Amazing how unusual such common or garden critters can seem under magnification. The chap with the red glasses is beautiful!

Sorry VP...my intention was not to cast nasturtiums about your method or data. My only point was whether you had all the variables which affect temp changes, that's all. OK, so the data has done this so far: that doesn't mean that it always has to and my understanding was that there were various things which would affect the future picture which had not been an issue in previous years or whose effect would be exagerated in future. Although predictive, if you know what affect x and y have, it is not beyond the realms of possibility to say that when x and y are present, then the following will happen. I believe that's how the figures have been arrived at. The rest I have no way to critically analyse, so I'll bow out. As I say, can we send this to someone so they can tell us exactly why VPs picture and that of the IPCC is so different.

OK I'll take the bait..... I guess we're not talking about whether the graph is right according to the data you've input. I'm sure it is. The discrepancy lies in working out whether the range of variables you have input are complete. Perhaps you are right, but as Iceberg has said, there is other evidence which points to a different picture. Also, although I have no way of verifying it, I cannot believe that the thousands of scientists doing this haven't looked at this. Is there anyone we can email to ask?