In The News

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well of course! thats what the debating is all about. The "deniars" and the "dollys"

one pro AGW,the other non AGW to some extent!

The context of the email should be who are these people to by-pass peer reveiw process or to say what go's in what does'nt.IE :the team who all singing from the same hymn sheet

and anyone who seems to be saying anything remotely different can say goodbye to the paper

they submit.It's hardly science by definition or by the principle of science study/methodology,when you get people like Michael Kelly making criticism should not the alarm bell's be ringing..obviously not to some on here.

Unfortunately that's not what I meant. I meant the mentality that if someone agrees with AGW he/she is automatically wrong, and if someone disagrees with AGW then he/she is automatically right, irrespective of who does what and when.

The points about by-passing peer review processes are valid, but the rest of it (allegation of dismissing anything that is different to the consensus view) does not follow at all from the evidence. If a climate sceptic said something along the lines "I dismiss a couple of papers (which may or may not support AGW) because of what I see as serious errors in the methodology", would you automatically infer that the sceptic is intolerant of positions on climate science that differ from the consensus view of a group of sceptics? Somehow I doubt it.

[Guest mycroft]

Unfortunately that's not what I meant. I meant the mentality that if someone agrees with AGW he/she is automatically wrong, and if someone disagrees with AGW then he/she is automatically right, irrespective of who does what and when.

The points about by-passing peer review processes are valid, but the rest of it (allegation of dismissing anything that is different to the consensus view) does not follow at all from the evidence. If a climate sceptic said something along the lines "I dismiss a couple of papers (which may or may not support AGW) because of what I see as serious errors in the methodology", would you automatically infer that the sceptic is intolerant of positions on climate science that differ from the consensus view of a group of sceptics? Somehow I doubt it.

TWS

i can see what you mean,but with ref the email "taken out context" "hide the decline" "mike trick"

are we not stretching credibility/coincidence for all these to be taken out of context.

when we know FOI request were deliberately decline and data with held and possibly delelted

[Essan]

Essan

Surely thats what peer review is all about,let a paper go though the process,if its wrong

some one else points out the mistakes/errors and the person who wrote the paper goes back and sorts out the errors/mistakes and then puts the paper forward again.

Not having a person/persons simply saying they will not let papers go forward in due course of the process, that is not how peer review works, who are they to say/tell any scientist that!.And how would they feel if it happened to them!!

Not all papers are published in journals that insist on peer review. And some journals specifically publish papers which reach certain conclusions regardless of their accuracy.

For example, supposed the email exchange was about a paper written by 'meteorologist' Scott Stevens, published in an obscure geology Journal, claiming that global warming was caused by HAARP. Would you agree with - or at least understand - their sentiments about not allowing such a paper to be presented to the IPCC?

[Thundery wintry showers]

TWS

i can see what you mean,but with ref the email "taken out context" "hide the decline" "mike trick"

are we not stretching credibility/coincidence for all these to be taken out of context.

when we know FOI request were deliberately decline and data with held and possibly delelted

Perhaps the best answer is to have a look at what the official investigations found:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8595483.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10538198

They do bear out some of what you say, particularly regarding the general issue of "closed shop" attitudes, but nothing undermining the credibility of the science itself.

[Guest mycroft]

Perhaps the best answer is to have a look at what the official investigations found:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8595483.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10538198

They do bear out some of what you say, particularly regarding the general issue of "closed shop" attitudes, but nothing undermining the credibility of the science itself.

Oh come on please, i've read those....but those investigations are now being looked into by a Parliamentary Select Committe,Oxburgh and Russell were hardly ring endorsement for inquirys were they,

Oxburghs team spent a couple of day there "UEA" mainly drinking coffee and eating so it seems

lets see what comes out Russell's questioning :blush:

you asked for links to the select commitee hearing a couple of pages ago we seem to be going round in circles a bit

As for the science being credible, not according to Prof Micheal Kelly

Guess it comes down to who you believe/or which side of the argument you sit

Edited September 14, 2010 by mycroft

[Thundery wintry showers]

Aye, so we will need to reserve judgement until after the enquiries (I wasn't aware of these new enquiries), but I do detect an element of anti-AGW confirmation bias here, i.e. "if someone who disbelieves or questions the AGW consensus says something it must be right, and vice versa"

I don't trust the Register article btw- its articles on climate change often try to twist evidence with an anti-AGW slant, such as a piece where they took some excellent comments by Mike Hulme relating to the downsides of consensus science and twisted them out of all proportion.

[Guest mycroft]

Aye, so we will need to reserve judgement until after the enquiries (I wasn't aware of these new enquiries), but I do detect an element of anti-AGW confirmation bias here, i.e. "if someone who disbelieves or questions the AGW consensus says something it must be right, and vice versa"

I don't trust the Register article btw- its articles on climate change often try to twist evidence with an anti-AGW slant, such as a piece where they took some excellent comments by Mike Hulme relating to the downsides of consensus science and twisted them out of all proportion.

I am mostly anti AGW, not entirely, As the dominant and most damaging species this planet has ever had on it of course we have changed our enviroment and have changed our atmosphere,Can we change our climate probably,there is just some thing with the Co2 theory, for me its the thing about the cooling that took place in the 1940s-the 1970s with the Co2 levels still rising,plus the way the data has been put together proxy temps,tree ring data,seem pie in the sky methods,as a non academic, non scientist, with no training in climate science that probably seems stupid to many,the fundamentals of science is Observation, Replication and Prediction.The current Global Warming theory is based on 30years of observation!!Replication of results as we have heard seem to be impossible "Oxburgh select committe hearing " Prediction how can we predict whats going to happen in 30,50,100, years in to the future in such a chaotic system as our climate.Yes i know some one will say trends, but trends change.I guess some will come along and find a answer to the 1940-1970 cooling+Co2 rising,who knows as with our climate in general we will have to wait and see what our climate will do,because if we are doing damage with Co2

even as this dominant species there is aboslutely nothing we can do to reverse the damage done if any the same with Arctic ice.

I did not know the Register was a unreliable source, my apologies will not use links /info from there again

Edited September 14, 2010 by mycroft

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't think it's necessarily bad to cite The Register articles- there are far worse sources out there, but it does have its own agendas, which is something that those reading those articles need to bear in mind. So no need to apologise there really.

There is, indeed, (short of geoengineering, anyway) nothing that we can do to reverse any damage that we've already done. What climate scientists and environmental campaigners alike are hoping for is that we can reduce the extent of any damage that we do in the future, so as to reduce the extent to which any resulting problems get worse.

The CO2/AGW theory stems from a logarithmic relationship (explored on a few other threads by the likes of VillagePlank and Captain_Bobski), which dictates via various first-principles laws of science that as CO2 concentrations rise, all other things being equal, temperatures rise. The problem is that all other things are not equal, we have various climate feedbacks to take into account, which in such a chaotic system are very hard to pin down, hence there being so much research on the subject. I actually have a reputation for being a "sceptic" in some circles, because although I accept the AGW theory and believe that the current generation of climate models is the best guess we have, I have doubts as to how accurate the guess really is, because if the models overwhelmingly overestimate or underestimate even one significant aspect of feedbacks it will bias the consensus towards too much, or too little, climate sensitivity.

[Guest mycroft]

I don't think it's necessarily bad to cite The Register articles- there are far worse sources out there, but it does have its own agendas, which is something that those reading those articles need to bear in mind. So no need to apologise there really.

There is, indeed, (short of geoengineering, anyway) nothing that we can do to reverse any damage that we've already done. What climate scientists and environmental campaigners alike are hoping for is that we can reduce the extent of any damage that we do in the future, so as to reduce the extent to which any resulting problems get worse.

The CO2/AGW theory stems from a logarithmic relationship (explored on a few other threads by the likes of VillagePlank and Captain_Bobski), which dictates via various first-principles laws of science that as CO2 concentrations rise, all other things being equal, temperatures rise. The problem is that all other things are not equal, we have various climate feedbacks to take into account, which in such a chaotic system are very hard to pin down, hence there being so much research on the subject. I actually have a reputation for being a "sceptic" in some circles, because although I accept the AGW theory and believe that the current generation of climate models is the best guess we have, I have doubts as to how accurate the guess really is, because if the models overwhelmingly overestimate or underestimate even one significant aspect of feedbacks it will bias the consensus towards too much, or too little, climate sensitivity.

Good post

we seem to agree/have same thoughts on the same things.Time will tell i guess

[SteveB]

What a refreshing bit of news done via the BBC, they have certainly redeemed them self slightly in my eyes.

Using term like since satellite records began, rather than the alarmist since records began, make such a big difference.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11322310

[Coast]

Britain is not doing enough to prepare for the impacts of climate change, raising costs for homes and businesses, two separate bodies said this week.

"The UK must start acting now to prepare for climate change. If we wait, it will be too late," said John Krebs, chair of the Adaptation Sub-Committee on Climate Change, an independent body which advises the government on climate adaptation. "If no action is taken, there will be very significant costs on households and businesses and the UK will miss out on some business opportunities as well," Krebs told reporters at a briefing.

The report was a "wake-up call," and every part of society must think about the UK's resilience to climate change, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said on Thursday."The transition to a low carbon, well-adapted global economy could create hundreds of thousands of sustainable green jobs. But we must -- all of us -- take steps now to recognize the problem, analyze the risk and plan ahead," she said.

www.reuters.com/article

[Gray-Wolf]

What a refreshing bit of news done via the BBC, they have certainly redeemed them self slightly in my eyes.

Using term like since satellite records began, rather than the alarmist since records began, make such a big difference.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-11322310

Shame they were wrong then?:lol:

[Guest mycroft]

WOW!!!desperate times require desperate measures? :lol:

“This short advisory paper collates a set of recommendations about how best to shape mass public communications aimed at increasing concern about climate change and motivating commensurate behavioural changes.

“Its focus is not upon motivating small private-sphere behavioural changes on a piece-meal basis. Rather, it marshals evidence about how best to motivate the ambitious and systemic behavioural change that is necessary – including, crucially, greater public engagement with the policy process (through, for example, lobbying decision-makers and elected representatives, or participating in demonstrations), as well as major lifestyle changes.â€

1984's thought police anyone? :ph34r:

And to think 100,000's of british soldiers died in ww2 to stop fascism

Edited September 16, 2010 by mycroft

[noggin]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75296

We had better get used to the new "name". It isn't Global Warming any more, nor is it Climate Change any more. It's Global Climate Disruption.

I don't know whether it will catch on though......it's got too many syllables (7) to roll off the tongue as easily as Global Warming (4) or Climate Change (3).

[Thundery wintry showers]

I disagree completely with his new name, though I think there's a fair case for "global heating" being a better description (mentioned near the end of the article).

Having read the article, it seems that the argument broadly stems from the following premises:

• The root of the problem is a risk that the globe as a whole will warm substantially over a small timespan.
  
• This is expected to seriously disrupt the global climate- some areas warming a lot faster than others, atmospheric circulation changes, sea level rises etc.
  
• Therefore a more accurate term is "Global Climate Disruption" because it conveys what the effects are expected to be.
  

But I can see an extremely obvious counterargument to "Global Climate Disruption"- namely that natural forcings have always disrupted the global climate and always will, with or without human intervention. It takes critical emphasis away from encouraging humans to feel that they are at least partly to blame (e.g. the CO2-warming relationship for instance is easy for the general public to grasp, while CO2-warming-various causes of climate disruption-disruption is a much longer chain with far more attached uncertainty). Thus I can see it being very counterproductive.

[Guest mycroft]

WOW!!!desperate times require desperate measures?

“This short advisory paper collates a set of recommendations about how best to shape mass public communications aimed at increasing concern about climate change and motivating commensurate behavioural changes.

“Its focus is not upon motivating small private-sphere behavioural changes on a piece-meal basis. Rather, it marshals evidence about how best to motivate the ambitious and systemic behavioural change that is necessary – including, crucially, greater public engagement with the policy process (through, for example, lobbying decision-makers and elected representatives, or participating in demonstrations), as well as major lifestyle changes.â€

1984's thought police anyone? :ph34r:

And to think 100,000's of british soldiers died in ww2 to stop fascism

Sorry forgot to post link to whole of the article

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/16/climate-craziness-of-the-week-attention-citizens-you-are-thinking-the-wrong-thoughts/#more-24951

WOW!!!desperate times require desperate measures?

“This short advisory paper collates a set of recommendations about how best to shape mass public communications aimed at increasing concern about climate change and motivating commensurate behavioural changes.

“Its focus is not upon motivating small private-sphere behavioural changes on a piece-meal basis. Rather, it marshals evidence about how best to motivate the ambitious and systemic behavioural change that is necessary – including, crucially, greater public engagement with the policy process (through, for example, lobbying decision-makers and elected representatives, or participating in demonstrations), as well as major lifestyle changes.â€

1984's thought police anyone? :ph34r:

And to think 100,000's of british soldiers died in ww2 to stop fascism

Sorry forgot to post link to whole of the article

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/16/climate-craziness-of-the-week-attention-citizens-you-are-thinking-the-wrong-thoughts/#more-24951

[weather eater]

Sorry forgot to post link to whole of the article

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/16/climate-craziness-of-the-week-attention-citizens-you-are-thinking-the-wrong-thoughts/#more-24951

Sorry forgot to post link to whole of the article

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/16/climate-craziness-of-the-week-attention-citizens-you-are-thinking-the-wrong-thoughts/#more-24951

Not much of a story, and I'm not even sure you could call it, in the news, unless you count whatsupwiththat as a news agency as opposed to a website with an agenda. This is a short advisory paper, in other words just some ideas from a think tank, the sort of thing that’s ten a penny this days, and one that covers a vast array of subjects that maybe of some use to policy makers, or may just get dumped on the scrap heap with hundreds of others. I have to say that I find little point in the whatsupwiththat site, as the only people who pay it attention are those who have already made their minds up and who are willing to believe any tittle-tattle story no matter of what quality as long as it supports an anti AGW stance.

If I was a don’t know in the climate debate I would be less than impressed with the sceptic stand point, it often smacks of desperation in its attempts to find flaws in an argument that the bulk of the scientific community supports. Instead of a comprehensive theory to explain recent climate change, we have a bizarre stew of different ideas, these range from complete denial that the earth has warmed in recent decades, to a raft of half baked theory’s that attest that we have warmed but with very little or no input from human actions. When we say the science isn't settled, what we really mean is the sceptic camp is unable to put together a half decent and comprehensive alternative explanation. I desperately want AGW theory to be discredited but to do so a compelling counter theory has to be put forward.

What really surprises me about the climate debate on these threads is that nobody seems to take on board the idea that that there may be both a natural and man made element to the warming we have seen, thus creating a double whammy effect which may possibly be twice a dangerous. It’s either one or the other.

[Guest mycroft]

Not much of a story, and I'm not even sure you could call it, in the news, unless you count whatsupwiththat as a news agency as opposed to a website with an agenda. This is a short advisory paper, in other words just some ideas from a think tank, the sort of thing that’s ten a penny this days, and one that covers a vast array of subjects that maybe of some use to policy makers, or may just get dumped on the scrap heap with hundreds of others. I have to say that I find little point in the whatsupwiththat site, as the only people who pay it attention are those who have already made their minds up and who are willing to believe any tittle-tattle story no matter of what quality as long as it supports an anti AGW stance.

If I was a don’t know in the climate debate I would be less than impressed with the sceptic stand point, it often smacks of desperation in its attempts to find flaws in an argument that the bulk of the scientific community supports. Instead of a comprehensive theory to explain recent climate change, we have a bizarre stew of different ideas, these range from complete denial that the earth has warmed in recent decades, to a raft of half baked theory’s that attest that we have warmed but with very little or no input from human actions. When we say the science isn't settled, what we really mean is the sceptic camp is unable to put together a half decent and comprehensive alternative explanation. I desperately want AGW theory to be discredited but to do so a compelling counter theory has to be put forward.

What really surprises me about the climate debate on these threads is that nobody seems to take on board the idea that that there may be both a natural and man made element to the warming we have seen, thus creating a double whammy effect which may possibly be twice a dangerous. It’s either one or the other.

well i did have an 8 point reply to that but it seems i lost it.And its late and i am tired will post reply tomorrow

Edited September 18, 2010 by mycroft

[pottyprof]

What really surprises me about the climate debate on these threads is that nobody seems to take on board the idea that that there may be both a natural and man made element to the warming we have seen, thus creating a double whammy effect which may possibly be twice a dangerous. It’s either one or the other.

In all fairness, I think you'll find that the majority of people who post on here, agree that it's possible that there is some natural effect happening or agree there is some anthropogenic warming occurring.

I don't really get what you mean when you say one or the other. People do have their own view on this subject but it's a long time since anyone had such opposing views. Nothing is as clear cut as the extremists on other sites have claimed. The maths don't add up on either side of the coin to 100%, so I think on average we are about centre line.

Anyway... News....

[Thundery wintry showers]

What really surprises me about the climate debate on these threads is that nobody seems to take on board the idea that that there may be both a natural and man made element to the warming we have seen, thus creating a double whammy effect which may possibly be twice a dangerous. It’s either one or the other.

In the "outside world" it does tend to be that way- people with strong positions on the subject tend to polarise towards one extreme or the other with little scope for anyone with positions in between to have any say. But, as someone who regularly ends up "in between", I think recent threads on this forum have, on the whole, been a lot better on this issue than in the past, and I've certainly felt able to express "in between" positions without worrying about being shot down by one side or the other.

Regarding the Wattsupwiththat article, judging by the site's track record I won't be surprised if there's more than a little "spin" in that article, though there are certainly extremists on the pro-AGW side of the spectrum who, like most extremists in widely-polarised debates, get an unfair amount of say and attention. My sceptical brain tells me that we have too little evidence to "go on" from that article to be able to read much from it.

[stewfox]

http://www.cnsnews.c...s/article/75296

We had better get used to the new "name". It isn't Global Warming any more, nor is it Climate Change any more. It's Global Climate Disruption.

I don't know whether it will catch on though......it's got too many syllables (7) to roll off the tongue as easily as Global Warming (4) or Climate Change (3).

I do agree that 'global warming' does oversimplifies a complex issue but if you want to get someones attention you shout 'Fire' not 'blaze'.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/297843

[PersianPaladin]

Scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California at Berkeley project that at current rates of fossil fuel emissions, we are set to reach temperature rises of up to 8C within 90 years.

EIGHT CELCIUS?

Is this just fear-mongering claptrap? I mean come on.

[noggin]

Scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California at Berkeley project that at current rates of fossil fuel emissions, we are set to reach temperature rises of up to 8C within 90 years.

EIGHT CELCIUS?

Is this just fear-mongering claptrap? I mean come on.

But, but, but.......are we not close to running out of fossil fuels? If it is the burning of fossil fuels which is being blamed for temperature rises, then surely when the fossil fuels have all been used up the temperature will come down again? Or will the CO2 continue to hang around?

I reckon that the most useful thing that mankind can do is get a blooming move on with creating a clean and renewable source of energy.

[PersianPaladin]

But, but, but.......are we not close to running out of fossil fuels? If it is the burning of fossil fuels which is being blamed for temperature rises, then surely when the fossil fuels have all been used up the temperature will come down again? Or will the CO2 continue to hang around?

I reckon that the most useful thing that mankind can do is get a blooming move on with creating a clean and renewable source of energy.

A lot of credible sources state that the world reached the peak oil production this year. Peak Coal is apparently scheduled to be reached in 2011. Peak natural gas is scheduled (by some) to be in around 2025.

My understanding is that mankind must enact the precautionary principle and transition to a carbon-neutral economic system ASAP. This DOES require some form of government leadership; ideally at local levels. Scientists have been cajoled and pressured into muting their real fears about business-as-usual, while millions of dollars of oil/gas money goes to fund the denialists. Although I think some of the more extreme global-warming projections are also perhaps questionnable?

Overall, we will be seeing terminal depletion of our traditional mineral energy reserves across the spectrum within the first quarter of this century. Transition is not an option. It's a prerequisite for survival.

http://mondediplo.com/blogs/sliding-toward-climate-catastrophe

Edited September 21, 2010 by PersianPaladin

[Guest mycroft]

Oh how times change,lets go back to the 70's when ice loss was not a fear!!quite the reverse.

first one mentions Baffin Island

third has Steven Schnieder at the end on geo engineering

Enjoy!

Edited September 21, 2010 by mycroft