In The News

[stewfox]

It would be noggin but I think they're all out having the last of the summer wine.

It'll be interesting to see how the IPCC reorganises itself after this criticism. It has a lot of work to do to convince people that there are going to have to be changes to the way we live.

Was it in the states where more people believe in UFO's than there are believers in climate change?

Its on the front page of the Daily Express

http://www.express.c...ies-are-exposed

If it hits the front page of the Daily Mail its game over.

More people will believe the Moon is made of cheese then global warming, which is kind of sad

Note people still confuse weather with long term climate change (comment section)

Edited August 31, 2010 by stewfox

[Guest mycroft]

Joe B also has a habit of being woefully wrong....

There's always some wag predicting cooling, but never any evidence of global cooling! A bit like there's always someone predicting the end of the world

He predicted the cold winter last year and the hot summer in eastern europe this summer and so far he's bang on with the hurricane season prediction,plus he says ice extent this summer will fall between the 2007-2009 level.

As for wags predicting things,i seem to remember when global warming "took off" in the early 90's there were lot of people saying Britain would have a climate like the south of France within 20yrs or so,

[Gray-Wolf]

Its on the front page of the Daily Express

http://www.express.c...ies-are-exposed

If it hits the front page of the Daily Mail its game over.

More people will believe the Moon is made of cheese then global warming, which is kind of sad

Note people still confuse weather with long term climate change (comment section)

After 'climatgate' and the winter ice 'extent fiasco' all I can say is

Virescit Vulnere Virtus

Give some folk enough rope eh?

The majority of folk will note where the 'funding' for the paper comes from ( and the connections with the bankrolling of the 'disinformation' about AGW, primarily in the states) and ask what has them so afraid? Are we set to get some grand confirmation of AGW? Hmmm, very interesting, very interesting indeed!

Edited August 31, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Cloudman]

After 'climatgate' and the winter ice 'extent fiasco' all I can say is

Virescit Vulnere Virtus

Give some folk enough rope eh?

The majority of folk will note where the 'funding' for the paper comes from ( and the connections with the bankrolling of the 'disinformation' about AGW, primarily in the states) and ask what has them so afraid? Are we set to get some grand confirmation of AGW? Hmmm, very interesting, very interesting indeed!

I like most of the recommendations actually. I think the IPCC does need a full time Executive so that speedy comments can be made in the light of new science and also combat misrepresentation of the science. This would give the climate science community a proper professional media voice which is needed to combat the 'skeptical' spin.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Cloudman

[Yorkshiresnows]

Joe B also has a habit of being woefully wrong....

There's always some wag predicting cooling, but never any evidence of global cooling! A bit like there's always someone predicting the end of the world

Although he did nail the last US, UK and European winter forecast. This years Late Hurrican season (which looks a good call).

He also called correctly the global heat of the first half of this year.

He also provides a video blog and weekly update on the global sea ice (amongst other topics), and discusses failures as well as successes (I think that deserves some merit).

Seems pretty good so far this year !!!

He has called for cooling over the latter third and into next year ........ given the La Nina and change in PDO I think he has a good chance at being correct.

Y.S

[Guest mycroft]

After 'climatgate' and the winter ice 'extent fiasco' all I can say isVirescit Vulnere Virtus

Give some folk enough rope eh?

The majority of folk will note where the 'funding' for the paper comes from ( and the connections with the bankrolling of the 'disinformation' about AGW, primarily in the states) and ask what has them so afraid? Are we set to get some grand confirmation of AGW? Hmmm, very interesting, very interesting indeed!

Care to elaborate GW,who said climategate is over?!.As i asked the other night who's heard any thing from the police investigation yet?,what ice "extent fiasco"?

AS for being afraid of something....yes crippling taxation for the so called green levy on [b]everythingfrom fuel to food.your not afraid???????

[Gray-Wolf]

Whatever type of structure is put in place as a 'global monitor' of AGW's developing impacts will still end up a target from a small group of folk funded to disemble and obfuscate. In the end they will earn there monies and global society will be poorer positioned to react to the changes in the way they could had the 'science' been allowed to oppereate without being permanently forced to defend themselves from folk outside of science (peer group scrutinisation/review is essential ) who have an paid agenda to conform to.

As with the 'climategate' issue (prior to the climate conference) I would imagine that this is 'timed' to offset some worrying development in climate science be it this years drought/flooding and links to AGW or polar ice with the cryosat2 data showing the worst?

EDIT; or maybe the sight of lead sceptics bailing?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn

Edited August 31, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[noggin]

The majority of folk will note where the 'funding' for the paper comes from ( and the connections with the bankrolling of the 'disinformation' about AGW, primarily in the states) and ask what has them so afraid? Are we set to get some grand confirmation of AGW? Hmmm, very interesting, very interesting indeed!

Where does it come from, Wolfie? I haven't got a clue, so I'm not in the majority. My lack of knowledge obviously also means that I am unaware of the "connections".

I genuinely do not know. Would you please enlighten me, old chap?

By the way, I detect a bit of cynicism in your post, but please do not infer any from mine......'tis genuine.

PS Amongst other things, the report refers to conflict of interest, confirmation bias and not listening to dissenting voices. Do you not think that some radical reform is required or do you not think that there have been any of these things?

Peace and love to all, as always!

Edited August 31, 2010 by noggin

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

Take it you didn't get a chance to read this earlier Nog's?

[Guest mycroft]

Whatever type of structure is put in place as a 'global monitor' of AGW's developing impacts will still end up a target from a small group of folk funded to disemble and obfuscate. In the end they will earn there monies and global society will be poorer positioned to react to the changes in the way they could had the 'science' been allowed to oppereate without being permanently forced to defend themselves from folk outside of science (peer group scrutinisation/review is essential ) who have an paid agenda to conform to.

As with the 'climategate' issue (prior to the climate conference) I would imagine that this is 'timed' to offset some worrying development in climate science be it this years drought/flooding and links to AGW or polar ice with the cryosat2 data showing the worst?

EDIT; or maybe the sight of lead sceptics bailing?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn

LOL!that's a cracker.So who ever leaked the emails knew that this year we would have drought and flooding

and timed it to ofset some worrying developement LOL and as for links to AGW have'nt NOAA said that the heatwave

in Russia and floods in Pakistan and China were down to blocking and a looping jetstream.

Cryostat2 showing the worst what?.

As for Lomborg bailing read the piece again you will see he will still criticize,hardly bailing and he 's one sceptic not sceptic(S)

Thanks for the giggle,LOL

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727751.300-arctic-ice-less-than-meets-the-eye.html?full=true

News from the Arctic

[Guest mycroft]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727751.300-arctic-ice-less-than-meets-the-eye.html?full=true

News from the Arctic

"Yet when Barber woke up early the next morning, the ship was still cruising along almost as fast as usual. Either someone had made a mistake and the ship was headed for catastrophe, or there was something very wrong with the ice, he thought, as he rushed to the bridge in his pyjamas"

Damn, never going to find out what he found when he got to the bridge in his pyjamas, answers on a postcard....science can be so cruel

Glad to see a science journal not blaming the low ice year of 2007 on Global warming, and that it was down to a weather pattern

Edited September 1, 2010 by mycroft

[Gray-Wolf]

Yup , that AGW forced Arctic Di-pole again! (and those 'defated by AGW' ice levels) just left the Arctic wide open for that one My!

[Guest mycroft]

Yup , that AGW forced Arctic Di-pole again! (and those 'defated by AGW' ice levels) just left the Arctic wide open for that one My!

who's to say the di-pole has not appeared before and will dissappear again.

Washinton post 1922.though i suspect you've read this before

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

As i've said before the next few years will be fun and games

Why you keep going on about Arctic ice levels as if they are below 2007 levels is beyond me,

when/if they go below 2007 you may have something to crow about, until then lets just wait and see.

Edited September 1, 2010 by mycroft

[Gray-Wolf]

oh cheer me up with tales of the last time the 60-80 year cycle was in flux why don'tcha? What of the oceans /atmosphere today? If the first time a human augmented '60-80yr cycle did that (however small it was back then) and can make such a noticeable difference then what of today's 'Human augmented 60-80 year cycle'??? Enough to flip the switch my?

Edited September 1, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[noggin]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

Take it you didn't get a chance to read this earlier Nog's?

Blimey, Wolfie......that's a tome and a half, innit! I'll be honest and say that I have not read all of it as I have to make the tea. But, it seems to me that they fund many, many different things and someone has got to run pipelines, haven't they?

Are you drawing attention to this as "vested interest" on the part of the Kochs? (It isn't "conflict of interest", is it? My poor mind is going, I'm afraid....it's been a long day! )

[Gray-Wolf]

Though trying to keep away from 'that side' of thing's it looks (to me) like there are some major funders for AGW denialism.

They (to me) look like oil and pertrochemicals and folk with a lot of money to invest?

Any further and it becomes too 'conspiricy' for me so I won't , that said the same names crop up again and again and the same comp,s used in the 60's and 70's tobacco campaigns.?

[Guest mycroft]

oh cheer me up with tales of the last time the 60-80 year cycle was in flux why don'tcha? What of the oceans /atmosphere today? If the first time a human augmented '60-80yr cycle did that (however small it was back then) and can make such a noticeable difference then what of today's 'Human augmented 60-80 year cycle'??? Enough to flip the switch my?

The switch gets and has gotten switched before and it will happen again.Whos to say its human augmented as you say, thats just the arrogance of climate science saying they know everything,

and Your own entrenched view with a different opinion.

As for AGW deniers funding the denialism campaign,did'nt Shell provide funding to UEA climate research??

Does'nt quite ad up,petrochemicals funding something they want to discredit

[jethro]

This isn't said with a MOD hat on, just little old me and my Englishness.....

Please, please, please don't use the word "gotten"; it's one Americanism too far.

[Gray-Wolf]

Why Surely Ma'am, glad to obligue a lady ! tchuck,.tchuck......

[Guest mycroft]

Just found this on Climateaudit

Well well seems all those inquirys and investigations are going to be .....investigated

The Science and Technology Committee will hold an oral evidence session following-up to the previous committee’s report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

The session will be on:

Wednesday 8 September 2010 at 10.30 am

Thatcher Room, House of Commons

The Committee will take evidence from Lord Oxburgh, who headed the International Panel that was set up by the University to assess the integrity of the research published by the Climatic Research Unit.

An oral evidence session with Sir Muir Russell, who headed the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, will be announced in October.

The sessions will focus on how the two reviews responded to the former committee’s recommendations about the reviews and how they carried out their work

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/news/100931-uea-ev-session/

Now for those that have not been following the Climategate aftermath closely might have missed that the Members of the UK Parliament that sat on the committee believe that they had been lied to by UEA and thes supposed “Inquiries:

Parliament was misled and needs to re-examine the Climategate affair thoroughly after the failure of the Russell report, a leading backbench MP told us today.

“It’s not a whitewash, but it is inadequate,†is Labour MP Graham Stringer’s summary of the Russell inquiry report. Stringer is the only member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology with scientific qualifications – he holds a PhD in Chemistry.

Earlier this week the former chair of the Science and Technology Committee, Phil Willis, now Lord Willis, said MPs had been amazed at the “sleight of handâ€.

“Oxburgh didn’t go as far as I expected.

The Oxburgh Report looks much more like a whitewash,†Graham Stringer told us.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/09/stringer_on_russell/

ADVISORY: all those warminista's with fans on might want to switch them off

[noggin]

Though trying to keep away from 'that side' of thing's it looks (to me) like there are some major funders for AGW denialism.

They (to me) look like oil and pertrochemicals and folk with a lot of money to invest?

..........and for a major beneficiary of government funding and grants, step forward Dr. Rajendra Pachauri....

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ

It appears to me that there is an awful lot of self-interest and feathering of nests on the part of both "sides". It's part of the reason why I can't be bothered much with it all any more. I will continue to do my bit towards a cleaner world but it's the big guns that have the power to make a difference and they all seem more concerned with how it benefits their pockets more than anything else.

What to do, eh?

Edited September 3, 2010 by noggin

[noggin]

Well well seems all those inquirys and investigations are going to be .....investigated

The Science and Technology Committee will hold an oral evidence session following-up to the previous committee’s report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

What a pile of pants it's all become. Wasn't it the case that the CRU were the only ones to give evidence at the previous enquiry into their doings? Absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps the findings of the IAC (?) recently will have served to open the floodgates so that we can have some faith in future proceedings and claims, but I'm still holding my breath as you suggested the other day. I'm beginning to turn blue for lack of oxygen......or is it lack of warming? :w00t:

Edited September 3, 2010 by noggin

[Guest mycroft]

It just keeps getting better and better. :lol:

not only did Muir Russell ask Jones what paper he wanted the investigation team to look into ref the CRU emails leaks.

It now appears the UEA paid Muir Russell £40.000 for doing so, no doubt so he came up with the right results, serious conflict of interest i'd say.No wonder Parliament is having a look into these shaningans.

read here.....

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/holyrood-fiasco-peer-s-40k-for-chairing-climategate-review-1.1052947

Edited September 5, 2010 by mycroft
Dead link

[jethro]

Your link doesn't work

This sounds like a good idea:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100905/full/news.2010.448.html