In The News

[Devonian]

Hi Mycroft,

I have to say I have been enjoying your recent posts.

However, I would refrain from indulging the usual suspects in continuous debate (save yourself the hassle). There are those who will never move from their entrenched view !!

Keep posting

Y.S

We are in agreement!

Like you my view isn't entrenched. As such I think it's entirely possible that Dr Pachauri is entirely innocent of the changes self appointed policeman Richard North has convinced himself he is guilty of.

I'm also sure you'll agree with me that entrenched views like Richard North's aren't helpful.

Am I right? :winky:

[Guest mycroft]

Actually North says 'his paper stand by the accusation' and 'the article was sound, all the substantive facts are correct and the paper stands by them.'. The Telegraph has said no such thing. That North feels the need to suggest say the Telegraph has said something it hasn't adds to the suspicion that you can't believe a word North says.

No, North makes the accusation again. Since this accusation has been refuted (by the apology for The Telegraph and the KPMG work) it adds further weight to the idea you simply cannot trust North.

He could. But do you think anything would shut up North? He is, clearly, a man who's mind is made up. A man who's mind is closed to the idea Dr Pachauri might be innocent of the changes he scatters about.

Well in my 45 years on the rock i have read that many a million pound libel writ issued and carried out will shut most people up.

[Guest mycroft]

Hi Mycroft,

I have to say I have been enjoying your recent posts.

However, I would refrain from indulging the usual suspects in continuous debate (save yourself the hassle). There are those who will never move from their entrenched view !!

Keep posting

Y.S

Thank you, but i am a big boy now and i think i can handle most things in life,and i am very aware of the

warmanista brigade on here (and other sites as there is a overflow from one to another)I do pop over to TWO site to have a look.But its far too heated to get involved so browse here instead.If i post something that is wrong then it will get corrected i am sure, and if i think i am right or have a point i will debate it vigorously.

We all have our entrenched views and should air them,and i like to indulge and from such indulgence we learn

and thats what science should be about.

I thank you for your concern

[sunny starry skies]

Is there a suggestion that there shouldn't be a debate at all unless you agree with a certain point of view? Interesting view for posting on a forum!

I agree with you mycroft in that I think Pachauri probably does have grounds for libel against North, and I wonder how long it will be before people like North or Monckton draw libel suits against themselves, given the continuous barrage of blatantly false accusations coming from those quarters. Certainly the trend appears to be towards retraction of the false stories and apologies, indicating that where these issues are considered at a legal level, the spreaders of disinformation in the print media are not considered to be in the right.

Edited August 27, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[Devonian]

Well in my 45 years on the rock i have read that many a million pound libel writ issued and carried out will shut most people up.

So, two choices:

One, he lets the libellous allegations carry on and people think 'hey, he's guilty because he knows he can't win a libel case'?

Two, he sues for libel and people think 'hey, he's guilty ,because he's trying to shut people up'?

He can't win. Don't you see the problem with that

Suppose Dr Pachauri is innoncent (I know you know he isn't but just suppose - because he IS innocent of the charges trumped up by Richard North) what IYO should he do?

[jethro]

I think the libel laws are pretty tight, if he has a sound case he should go for it especially as more often than not, he'll re-coup his costs too.

[weather eater]

Hi Mycroft,

I have to say I have been enjoying your recent posts.

However, I would refrain from indulging the usual suspects in continuous debate (save yourself the hassle). There are those who will never move from their entrenched view !!

Keep posting

Y.S

I've been coming on here for a good few years and I’ve yet to see anybody change their entrenched views on either side of the debate. What’s that saying YS, "let he who casts the first stone be without sin". pot, kettle, black, all that kind of thing. No matter how many words appear on these pages, nothing will change anybody’s opinion, unless, either the bulk of the scientific community that believe in AGW theory suddenly decides they have got it wrong all along, or on the sceptics side of the debate, we have some sort of day after tomorrow climate catastrophe.

[stewfox]

warming from 1900s- 1940s

cooling from 1940s- 1970s

warming from 1970s- 2000s

cooling from 2000s- 2030s

yes most concur, 30 year trends are a well established climate definition.

Record Heat in some place in the north (their summer) and some impressive record colds in the South (their winter)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/20/cold-snap-freezes-south-america-beaches-whitened-some-areas-experience-snow-for-the-first-time-in-living-memory/

Its just weather ?

[Yorkshiresnows]

I've been coming on here for a good few years and I’ve yet to see anybody change their entrenched views on either side of the debate. What’s that saying YS, "let he who casts the first stone be without sin". pot, kettle, black, all that kind of thing. No matter how many words appear on these pages, nothing will change anybody’s opinion, unless, either the bulk of the scientific community that believe in AGW theory suddenly decides they have got it wrong all along, or on the sceptics side of the debate, we have some sort of day after tomorrow climate catastrophe.

Hi WE,

I'm certainly not whiter than white ......... however, I am one of the 'changers' in that I was firmly in belief of AGW until only a year or so ago. What I have read and reviewed has made me seriously question exactly how much 'man' has really influenced the climate.

If the world continues to warm given the change in PDO, low solar activity etc, then I may very well change it back again ..... the only problem I have is when evidently good science is rubbished for no real reason other than it 'goes against the grain' ... or for even being published in 'the wrong journal'.

Still time will tell and your points are fairly made and duly noted.

Y.S

[Gray-Wolf]

Do we really think we post on here to change our views?

I imagine some folk (new to the subject) are finding their feet and so our posts give a 'shop-front' to the issues but beyond that?

We post on here so that the 'Lurkers' can have a good ,and current, 'shop-front' to look at and maybe help them to form an opinion on things?

The other thing for us all to bear in mind is that we have 'Tit-for-Tat' exchanges, almost as though things were 50/50 split in the real world.......the scientists assure us they are beyond 90% sure of their understanding on AGW being correct.............not quite 50/50 there?

If the forum reflected the 'reality of current understanding' then every post questioning the science would be balanced with 9 others explaining why the science is correct....it isn't is it?

So , to me, we are "A Shop-front".

Lot's of vulnerable ,impressionable, folk peep in here to try and make sense of the world (and times) they live in and we owe them a duty to tell it straight and that means let them understand that in here does not reflect the state of things out there (for the millions of folk, 'in the know', beavering away to quantify the changes we are witnessing and giving us the opportunity to find out for ourselves what is 'happening' in our global climate .....)

We are told to behave (and rightly so!) and we are criticised for being entrenched....but what else can exist here?

[pottyprof]

I've been coming on here for a good few years and I’ve yet to see anybody change their entrenched views on either side of the debate.

Oh, I don't know.. I mean, I'm more inclined to believe Nostradamus than some of the things I read these days...

[Guest mycroft]

Is there a suggestion that there shouldn't be a debate at all unless you agree with a certain point of view? Interesting view for posting on a forum!

I agree with you mycroft in that I think Pachauri probably does have grounds for libel against North, and I wonder how long it will be before people like North or Monckton draw libel suits against themselves, given the continuous barrage of blatantly false accusations coming from those quarters. Certainly the trend appears to be towards retraction of the false stories and apologies, indicating that where these issues are considered at a legal level, the spreaders of disinformation in the print media are not considered to be in the right.

If thats directed at me, i refute that totally, debate and open debate is what is needed not closedshop inquirys

or inhouse clique peer reviews.

Monckton will never be libelled far too smart..unless a big backer comes in and is willing to loose big money

even then it will never get to court...too much risk in a sceptic letting loose with all that information,media would have a field day and start to ask awkward questions from climate scientists.

[Guest mycroft]

So, two choices:

One, he lets the libellous allegations carry on and people think 'hey, he's guilty because he knows he can't win a libel case'?

Two, he sues for libel and people think 'hey, he's guilty ,because he's trying to shut people up'?

He can't win. Don't you see the problem with that

Suppose Dr Pachauri is innoncent (I know you know he isn't but just suppose - because he IS innocent of the charges trumped up by Richard North) what IYO should he do?

If hes innocent he go's to court to prove that and the high court pronounce's judgement to that order, and awards cost and damages

Your number 2 does'nt even make sense.he sues for libel and as above he wins and is proven not guilty of any wrong doing.

When KPMG get involved and find no funny business thats mostly it....unless he has bank accounts in another name!!!

Edited August 27, 2010 by jethro
No need for the personal jibes.

[sunny starry skies]

mycroft that wasn't directed at you!

stewfox, what about the trends in warm or cold records? Or the areas of the globe affected by the warm/cold anomalies? Of course weather can set records anytime, but we see more and more warm records w.r.t. cold records being broken...

[VillagePlank]

IAC reports back on IPCC, here, saying that the IPCC needs reform for it's continued success.

Edited August 30, 2010 by VillagePlank

[noggin]

If the reforms are implemented properly, then I will have more faith in the IPCC. But it remains to be seen how this is going to be done and how we can tell that the changes are both real and relevant. Is there some sort of independent overseer of the reforms?

I wonder if Dr. P. will go?

I am keeping an open mind on the whole reform business and am agog with excitement about it all!

Oh dear......doesn't that make me sound like a saddo?! :lol:

Edited August 30, 2010 by noggin

[noggin]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7971780/Climate-change-predictions-must-be-based-on-evidence-report-on-IPCC-says.html

Interesting bit at the bottom of this article about a speech to be given by Professor (of climate change) Mike Hulme of UEA at the Royal Geographic Society this week. Should be interesting.

[Guest mycroft]

mycroft that wasn't directed at you!

stewfox, what about the trends in warm or cold records? Or the areas of the globe affected by the warm/cold anomalies? Of course weather can set records anytime, but we see more and more warm records w.r.t. cold records being broken...

thank you for your clariforcation, i am sorry for jumpingt to the wrong assumption.

[Guest mycroft]

If the reforms are implemented properly, then I will have more faith in the IPCC. But it remains to be seen how this is going to be done and how we can tell that the changes are both real and relevant. Is there some sort of independent overseer of the reforms?

I wonder if Dr. P. will go?

I am keeping an open mind on the whole reform business and am agog with excitement about it all!

Oh dear......doesn't that make me sound like a saddo?! :lol:

Don't get to excited, if Pachauri went he would only be replaced with another team player!

What would give the IPCC some relevance would be 50/50 split of sceptic scientist's and AGW scientist's

How it would done and the results would be another question????

As for independant oversee...don't hold your breath.

[noggin]

Don't get to excited, if Pachauri went he would only be replaced with another team player!

What would give the IPCC some relevance would be 50/50 split of sceptic scientist's and AGW scientist's

How it would done and the results would be another question????

As for independant oversee...don't hold your breath.

Hope springs eternal and all that! But as you wisely suggest, I'd best not hold my breath. The IPCC certainly needs a new broom, because having had the same old captain at the helm for so many years, the AGW ship seems stuck on the same old course (apart from using the term "climate change" instead of "global warming" more and more). Please excuse the mixed metaphors!

The gentleman who announced the findings today did say that the confirmation bias should end, perhaps a new chairman and the 50/50 split would help, as long as the chairman is impartial.

I am very surprised that there has been so little discussion about this, I was expecting the forum to be red hot!

[pottyprof]

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?

[noggin]

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

Ah, yes potty, I was forgetting the Bank Holiday!

Here http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Executive%20Summary%20and%20Front%20Matter.pdf is the report. It mentions confirmation bias, conflict of interests and all sorts of unsavoury stuff! How exciting it all is. But will it turn out to be a damp squib and be back to business as usual after all the hooha has died down? I dunno..... I'm certainly taking mycroft's advice about not holding my breath but I do hope that a more independent and fair and balanced and unbiased regime comes into being. Not asking too much, is it? Don't answer that.......

[pottyprof]

Ah, yes potty, I was forgetting the Bank Holiday!

Here http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Executive%20Summary%20and%20Front%20Matter.pdf is the report. It mentions confirmation bias, conflict of interests and all sorts of unsavoury stuff!

In all fairness, I don't think the report is that bad and the recommendations are a reasonable set for a body that needs to move with the times. It was getting a bit comfortable with the direction it was heading and this report should get them where they need to be. Perhaps they may now listen to more of the centre ground?

[Guest mycroft]

Ah, yes potty, I was forgetting the Bank Holiday!

Here http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Executive%20Summary%20and%20Front%20Matter.pdf is the report. It mentions confirmation bias, conflict of interests and all sorts of unsavoury stuff! How exciting it all is. But will it turn out to be a damp squib and be back to business as usual after all the hooha has died down? I dunno..... I'm certainly taking mycroft's advice about not holding my breath but I do hope that a more independent and fair and balanced and unbiased regime comes into being. Not asking too much, is it? Don't answer that.......

The next couple of years will be fun and games if Joe B is right and the global temps start to come down

and northern sea ice starts to grow, expect a few scientists to abandon ship and question the IPCC and others.

Canary's have a habit of singing when set free...interesting times ahead.

Edited August 30, 2010 by mycroft

[sunny starry skies]

The next couple of years will be fun and games if Joe B is right and the global temps start to come down

and northern sea ice starts to grow, expect a few scientists to abandon ship and question the IPCC and others.

Canary's have a habit of singing when set free...interesting times ahead.

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