A new BBC poll shows a major shift in public opinion in the UK since just last November. Look at the swing. Of the 41% of people who then said the cause of climate change was “well established,” more than 1 in 4 have switched sides. These people made up the major base of the active support, yet they are now questioning the assumption that man-made gases are driving the change.
Only 26% of people think “climate change is happening, and is now established as largely man-made”; on the other hand, 25% are so skeptical, they don’t believe climate change is happening at all.
We need a longer survey with more sophisticated questions to really find out what people think, but this poll makes it clear: Those sympathetic to urgent calls for major action on the climate now constitute only about one quarter of the population.
From the BBC site:
“It is very unusual indeed to see such a dramatic shift in opinion in such a short period,” Populus managing director Michael Simmonds told BBC News.
“The British public are sceptical about man’s contribution to climate change – and becoming more so,” he added.
“More people are now doubters than firm believers.”
The number of people who felt the risks of climate change had been understated dropped from 38% in November to 25% in the latest poll.
…
Things could move very fast from here. Studies show some people (possibly many) will adjust their opinions to fit in with the crowd. And just as this time-saving mental shortcut worked against skeptics for years, it’s now beginning to swing with us. The critical mass is at a tipping point.
Ask them again in summer. People (and the media) are fickle creatures!
10
Should we getting our hopes that this is/can be reflected elsewhere.
10
Just a little suggestion. You switched between 2 expressions. Global warming and climate change. The warmists even saw a decrease in evidence so they changed the espressin to climate change. Now we have had climate change since “in the Beginning?“
Most sunny days we see warming. Long term, not really.
10
Henry (#3)…
Yes, I noticed that too, in Jo’s article. And also in the wording of the questions, I have to be resigned to the fact that this is the way the language is being used “out there”, but I still find it extremely irritating that the meaning of words can so easily be distorted to the extent of making the original meaning meaningless.
10
Friend of Jo’s (#5)…
Well, it’s not just “for consistency”. The two terms have different meanings. Just because the twits who make these surveys, and the mass media, and the warministas, tend to use the terms interchangeably, doesn’t mean we have to accept that and follow suit.
The debate over the years has involved the distortion of language as one of the key tactics. But every time a sceptic uses “carbon” when they mean “carbon dioxide”, “global warming” when they mean “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”, “climate change” when they mean “global warming”, etc, then they are buying into the alarmist propoganda.
Don’t think it matters? I think it does.
10
Impacts of CO2 so far – Great Barrier Reef..ok, Glaciers..ok, Polar Bears..ok, Antarctic ice..ok, Arctic Ice..ok, Sea levels..ok. Greenland ice sheets..ok, ad nosium. However, up here in Canada, we have Provincial Primiers at each others throats, national political parties doing the same, our “leaders” hiding. the CBC (your ABC) not noticing a thing; fear, hate and destabilzation all around. Damage to the social fabric that will take a lot of time and effort to fix. The UN was supposed to stop wars not start them. Keep pounding JN…
10
They had to bail on exclusive use of “global warming”. Because it often is cooling. so they widened the expression to climate chance. That means warming is warming and cooling is warming.
The other nit pic from me is when warmistas say carbon, carbon pollution etc and I think they are still only referring to CO2 which is a gas. C is a solid. I have always believed the climate has always been changin.
I read history and many religions claim powers to appeal to gods and cause changes in rain, ending of droughts etc and they have also blaimed their own behaviors to anger or please these gods.
When at a young age I started yacht racing, I named one boat Zephyrus and another Leucothea. I got in trouble naming them after girlfriends because my boats lasted longer than relationships.
10
Sure your name isn’t Henry change? 🙂
10
Climate change IS happening.
Global warming, quite Naturally, just happened to be the last phase we went through.
We’re now into Natural global cooling.
Just another cycle of a billion years of climate change.
10
I was debating someone on another forum and they produced this!
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/
how do you answer that?
10
Steve Schapel #4 and #6
I agree that understanding and communicating the concepts are important. But I do not agree that we should use words or phrases to mean specific things, and only those things.
One of the great benefits of the English language is that it constantly morphs itself by acquiring new words, using old words in new ways, using the same word in different ways, using the same spelling for different words, using different spelling for the same word, etc. Not all languages have the concept of synonyms and antonyms. It is this variability that makes English such a rich language, and it is what makes it so hard for non-English speakers (and some teenagers) to become fluent.
Global warming was (I believe) the first iteration, but it required people to understand the concept of average temperature increase over time – not an easy concept to sell to people who prefer hard facts and immediacy, and who tend to notice that sometimes there is a cooling trend within the overall pattern. Climate change is probably a better name, because it does emphasise that the climate is not static. If you want to annoy a warmista, try referring to it as “climate variation”, since that phrase implies a certain randomness. 🙂
What riles me is that “Anthropogenic”, with its scientific definition, has been used to replace the phrase “man-made”, not only to avoid the suggestion of gender-bias, but to also lend gravitas to the whole concept. But in doing so, it encompasses all of human activity, including farming domesticated herding animals like cows, sheep, goats, etc. but excluding wild herding animals such as antelope, zebra, bison, etc. Thus, methane (a real greenhouse gas) produced by farming is bad, but methane produced by wild animals is good.
Hmm, what about all those huge herds of buffalo that once roamed the American west? What about the huge herds of bison that roamed Africa? How did the earth cope with all of that methane in the past? Try discussing that with you local WWF or Greenpeace activist!
10
Henry chance #8
Carbon is also an emission, in the form of airborne particles from uncontrolled burning (like forest fires). It is bad for the atmosphere!
Carbon is only good for the atmosphere when each carbon atom is combined with two atoms of oxygen!
When people use the term “Carbon”, we should all try to clarify what they mean. 🙂
10
janama #11
Correlation does not imply causation. You could also plot the global consumption of rice on the same graph and show a correlation.
Hey, now there is a thought – eating rice causes climate change? I think not!
10
This article in the UK Guardian shows just what direction ‘ClimateGate’ could be going.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-hacking-leaks
10
Rereke (#12)…
I am not against the evolution of language, in general. (Although I do confess to a very strong emotional attachment to maintaining non-US spelling in the colonies!)
But here’s the thing… if you start calling CO2 “carbon”, then what word to you then use to refer to carbon? And if you use “climate change” to refer exclusively to the climate variation 😉 that has happened recently as a result of industrialisation-caused atmospheric changes (which is really the way the term is used in the survey questions), then what word(s) do you use to refer to the climate change that happened pre-industrialisation, and the non-anthropogenic recent climate change? See, the fact that these words have been hijacked has the very powerful effect of denying (there’s that word again) certain concepts (e.g. the climate change that happened pre-industrialisation) by leaving us with no readily identifiable language to describe it.
There are many other examples, of course. Like the way you will often see the term “ad hominem” bastardised to mean “personal insult” – it takes the heat out of any attempt then to put the finger on real ad hominem fallacies, until we invent another word for it.
Anyway, I’m realistic enough to know that there’s not a lot can be done about it. But I am still going to try to avoid colluding with it, as best I can.
10
Yay! There is a God, after all.
10
That is probably the worst opinion poll wording I have seen in a long time. The last answer totally discredits it im my mind, but it is nonetheless clear people are losing their faith in what he IPCC and governments have been feeding them. I think the Yes Minister sketch on opinion polls is brilliant in this regard.
10
Global warming switched to climate change (CC) when the warming could no longer be detected. The choice of the term CC is ingenious as there will always be a weather event somewhere on Earth to support a CC story.
Most people see a change in weather as CC, it is not, eg the Northern hemisphere snows were a weather event that’s happened before, so the high temp spike recently reported and due to high ocean temps did not surprise those with an understanding of weather and climate.
Propaganda works better when you speak of CC and the Al Gore shameful videos prove this beyond doubt, most people accept warming without too much fear, change how they will live and they panic.
10
I’m just relieved to that we are, I believe, seeing the end of this mass hysteria. It’s a distraction from other pressing problems. For me it seems the peak hysteria was when An Inconvenient Truth was released on the back of cyclone Katrina.
Climategate was certainly the icebreaker that cast doubt over AGW once again, after years of “settled science” and open vilification of anyone who dared to question it. However I think there was more to it. Part of it I believe was climate change fatigue. Years of media coverage of impending doom, that always seemed to get more shrill, caused people to tuned out. Having every unusual weather event blamed on global warming (cold/hot/wet/dry/windy) starts to wear thin after a while.
Finally, as time went on, it became more apparent that the green movement was less about ecology and science, and more of a religion infused with leftist ideology, and misanthropic undertones. Common folk are not stupid, and started to see the AGW movement for what it was. In the end I think it will be a triumph of the wisdom of crowds.
10
[…] is an inexact science, As the climate debate heats up the populace realise they’ve been conned, Police still trying to work out how to turn the computer on, India to form new climate change […]
10
janama,
the guy that wrote that webpage admits he got the information from RealClimate. “It’s an amazing blog staffed tirelessly by some of the world’s leading climatologists” or so he says.
Should read “staffed tirelessly at taxpayers expense on behalf of shady, extreme environmental organisations by dishonest so called scientists.”
10
I would be interested to see what the same poll in Australia would show.
Probably little or no change whatsoever as the Australian Public have had the ultimate snowjob done on them by the press – Namely the failure to effectively cover the climategate story.
Even now, most people I have talked to believe the CRU east anglia thing was just a bunch of nasty emails (name calling etc). They’re suprized when I talk about the code.
10
I see the UAH has spiked up quite high for January… the AGW crowd are going to have a field day with that one. See the link at WUWT.
10
[…] Has the IPCC lost its support? […]
10
Ha Ha ha…one cold winter and they’re wavering! Now that you rhetorical sceptics are in the ascendency,you are now by default in the wrong,given that science isn’t done by consensus. You’ll have to drop the ‘Galileo’ strategy quick smart. Can you provide some referenced papers indicating a contingency between physics and opinion?
10
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by ClimateScam: Seismic Shifts in Opinions http://bit.ly/bm0tyP…
10
Lea (#26)…
There is no question that people form opinions on this (and other) matters for the wrong reasons.
For example, many people around the world have believed that we have to reduce the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, in order to avoid catastrophic global warming. They came to this incorrect viewpoint because of being told lies, and uncritically accepting them.
Given that these people have demonstrated a lack of willingness or a lack of ability to be rational, why would we now expect them to suddenly take a rational approach to the subject? It would be nice if they did, but let’s be realistic – most of them won’t. Therefore I have to be content with the fact that at least some of them are changing their opinion to a more correct one, whether or not it is based on a good understanding of the facts.
10
janama:
February 6th, 2010 at 7:48 am
Lets just look at their conclusion janama.
“We don’t claim that GHG’s are the major cause of ice ages or warming cycles. What drives climate change has long been believed to be variations in the earths orbit around the sun over thousands of years. In a normal warming cycle the sun heats the earth, the earth gets hotter. The oceans warm up releasing huge amounts of CO2. This creates a greenhouse effect that makes warming much, much more intense”.
My one question, which would make all of their other claims redundant is this…
Heating by the sun —-> Warming of Oceans —–> Release of HUGE quantities of CO2 —-> Greenhouse effect —-> More intense warming.
What comes next? According to their theory it must be….
More warming —-> More release of CO2 —–> More warming etc etc
So, the 64 million dollar question.
WHAT STOPS THIS CYCLE?
10
ah – they forget that CO2 warming is logarithmic! The earth has a built in brake.
10
plus warming means more water vapour, more water vapour means more clouds, more clouds equals less sun energy reaching the oceans and the land.
I’m sorry – my “how do you answer them” was sarcastic. I should have mentioned it.
10
Lea @26 said:
I cannot but I think the evidence is rather abundant that corrupted and denatured science held considerable sway over many politicians, world leaders and the mainstream media.
With some luck, science will recover in a decade or two but the healing won’t start as long as people are in denial about the gravity of its condition.
10
Baa Humbug:
This is exactly what I keep asking the AGW crowd. We know from ice cores that the earth has been both warmer and colder than today and that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied above and below the levels we see today. If you go back a few million years you will even see CO2 contrations an order of magnitude (ten times) higher than today.
So the real question is this… why did the earth neither freeze and become an ice planet or warm to the point of being a Venusian desert scape?
Clearly the only logical argument is that natural vaiables in the system are buffering it so that it does not pass irresversible tipping points in either direction. I would argue, from common sense alone, that the big buffer on our planet is the oceans. I suspect that clouds are the regulatory variable in the system.
The huge impact of a slight decrease or increase in cloud cover with respect to addition energy impacting the earth’s surface should be ample evidence alone. This dwarfs the forcing from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yet despite this the IPCC has a very crude simplification of clouds in the climate models and certainly does not represent them in any realistic way.
There is far more we do not know about climate science than we do know. I am all for funding additional research to uncover the unknowns, but not to drive political agendas for energy taxation. The latter is regressive and reduces mankind’s ability to deal with current and future issues. The economic distortions a worldwide ETS would introduce to the markets literally do not bear thinking about. There is no upside (except for those that make squillions trading in the derivaives markets).
10
Henrik Svenmark has some interesting thoughts that unify cosmic radiation, solar magnetic flux and cloud formation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0&feature=related
There are additional parts to the video – look on Youtube page.
Now there is a long way to go in verifying this theory, but intuitively I think it holds a lot more water than the IPCC single-minded focus on CO2.
10
I have now reached the stage where I no longer believe newspaper opinion, TV opinions, Politicians, or anyone else about climate change and, like most of the public, will switch off altogether. I will just make sure I will never vote for any politician who has fallen for this wicked snow job as they are too stupid to govern.
10
PS> Obviously the UN cannot raise taxes from cosmic rays or the sun, which is a major reason why it is not a popular theory in those circles…
10
Its all in one line “A new BBC poll ”
A little like Penn State’s wording/choice of charges against Mann!
The other day we had Roger Harrabin, “Environmental Correspondent” for the BBC, asking Anthony Watts (www.whatsupwiththat.com) in an email for the names of sceptical scientists he could interview. The fact that Harrabin has been one of the people at the Beeb that decided the “science was in” and no debate was needed led me to think, either he was trying to pull a fast one or he is the proverbial rat leaping overboard. Either way he is a cheeky chappy and many on WUWT slapped him down. Imagine, someone involved in the AGW scam not knowing who to call (Maybe because you have Lord Monckton down there with you)
This is the same Beeb that employ journalists that initially post stuff the “eco warriors” do not like and then, fold like a pack of cards under a little watermelon pressure!
(Google Richard Black/Jo Abbess)
I believe the article in question was at..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
and notice at the bottom the “Some changes were made to the original version of this story. You can read more about this on a post on the BBC editors’ blog.”
The lady, who seems to have editorial control, (with threats), at the BBC blogs here and still ad hom attacks Black! She describes herself as “I seem to fit an easily dismissable stereotype.” Seems Roger Black could not dismiss her.
http://www.joabbess.com/2010/01/01/the-bbcs-richard-black-tired-inaccurate/
The Beeb? As with some Antipodean TV channels, is grubbing in the pig trough of money (see the BBC’s Pension fund and check out what Carbon Trading they have been piling pensions into. Were I a BBC employed person I would be very scared about my retirement at the moment and it makes me wonder where your TV stations have their pension funds!
Do not trust the BBC!
10
HI
Sorry folks – slightly off topic but I can’t see it anywhere on this page and as this is the most recent thread: for those of you that missed the first Lord Monckton Sydney talk there is another on Fri Feb 12th at the Hilton. You have to pre-register: Detail are under the “Monckton Plimer Australian tour dates” link under Popular posts on the RHS of Jo’s home page. Spread the word!!
10
Ruby of Qld:
Welcome to the ranks of the skeptics. It is not so much a question of not believing anything you are told, however, more a question of viewing things critically. It is the difference between taking things on face value and actually questioning them and doing some research for oneself. Once you take control of the process it is actually quite comforting IMHO. I just laugh at a lot of the garbage in the media, because most of the presenters and experts have no more knowledge of the real science than you or I. Often much less. They literally would not know their fundamental rear orifices from a hole in the ground, and it would probably be a pointless exercise trying to explain it to them.
10
Just watched the 5 parts again myself and here they are (apologies, the name is Henrik Svensmark – missed the secons “S” last time:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTqBrML4nsc&feature=related
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3m8FJNm9Ro&feature=related
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5hPu9K684Y&feature=related
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3Um2Es1Hmo
What is so refreshing about Svensmark is the man’s obvious scientific humility. This is how real scientists speak. Notice also how he was attacked and “rubbished” by the Met Office chap… that is not how real scientists should behave. Sadly it is how some scientists in the thrall of government funding do behave these days. A certain Prof Pitman springs to mid…
Chalk and cheese, as I am sure yo will agree.
10
I was debating someone on another forum and they produced this!
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus
First off it’s a warmist putting both sides of the argument. Try it yourself on any topic, you’ll always outwit your opponent. Secondly his information comes almost exclusively from realclimate.com, a blog specifically set up to produce AGW propaganda. There are glaring errors of fact, one is that sceptics don’t think the ice-cores are reliable. I don’t know why that would be because the ice-core data are one of the reasons I’m a sceptic becasue there’s no relationship between CO2 and temperature in the ice-core data. There is a relationship between temperature and C02, temperature increases are usually followed by CO2 increases in the atmosphere. There’s lots more, but let’s just focus on what’s missing. They make no mention of the ratio of MM CO2 to Nature’s CO2. Human activity has probably increased total CO2 emissions by 2-4%, CO2 itself accounts for, and the figures vary, but I am choosing 5% of the forcings ( could be wrong would be pleased to be corrected by peer reviewed reference), which means the human activities have increased the forcing by between 0.1% and 0.2%. Does that seem a credible number to base the destruction of our planet on?
Last one, but there are many more. They deal with the “trick” like illusionists trying to make you look in the wrong direction. The “trick” was to splice the instrumental temperatures onto the proxy temperatures because (and by the way the quality of their case is shown in this one statement, the proxy data was available after 1960 it just showed a downturn in temperature instead of the expected and instrumenatlly measured upturn)the proxy data beyond 1960 was unreliable. The “sin” was to use the proxy data at all when they’d proved it unreliable.
They persist with the story that there have been “independent” verifications of the hockeystick when those verifying it are (a)members of the hockeyteam; (b)using the same data sets and methodology and(C) when they use new data sets have been shown to have cherry-picked the trees that gave the result they wanted (Briffa et al 2005) Where Briffa used a statistically insignificant 5 trees for the 20th century when 34 trees nearby gave the opposite result to that which he wanted.
There’s a lot more that could be challenged but that’s just a couple of points.
10
I’m actually disappointed at the 25% climate change not happening figure; climate change is happening, it always has. The climate is NOT static, and as we know temps started increasing (broadly) 300 years ago before the broad scale addition of CO2 into the atmosphere. Perhaps it highlights an issue with message: that is, a lack of understanding that climate change is real, but not climate change as proposed by those who support AGW. We shouldn’t let them hijack that.
10
Steve Schapel #16
I agree. The great PR machine that is behind most of the AGW hype (think Fenton Communications) will try to “own” as many words as possible. But one word they cannot “own” is the word “natural”.
So, in answer to “Anthropogenic Climate Change”, we can talk about “Natural Climate Variation”. It is then up to the Alarmists to argue how they are different, and how much of each is being observed at any given time.
10
Henry Chance you noticed it too? Well back in the early 2000s, I did a course at Uni named “Earth in Crisis?’ Back then it was
called Greenhouse gases … human made Greenhouse gases only enhance what is naturally produced. Probably the temperatures are more likely to go down and Greenhouse gases man made or natural are keeping us warm.
Then it graduated to Global warming then to Climate change, and
Al Gore of course, whose scarey movie suggested if we continued
industrial pollution it would plunge us into another ice age??
Then in came the climate change summits etc., and a deliberate
attempt to moderate developed countries to satisfy the undeveloped countries who believed all their lives would be ruined because of us developed industrialised countries. And we
have to pay up to continue with our standard of living. Or pay more because of ETS taxes, effects on agricultural production,
and all based on fraudulent data produced by those being paid
to substantiate a political ideology that suits the Greens and
far left. But where is sustainability efforts gone too?
10
I’ve not lived in UK since 1965, but they weren’t growing grapes
then, that was for greenhouses etc., unless you lived on the Scilly Isles or parts of SW England in warm pockets. Same with
Citrus fruits and tomatoes. Particularly in the Northern parts
of UK.
Warming periods always preceded mini or glacial periods. Particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. The Gulf Stream stops
because of the edition of fresh water from ice melts diverts it
into deeper depths. I believe that sea water is partly to do with the melts, in parts of the world where there are volcanic eruption under the sea.
Heard the expression “What goes up has to come down?” And if anything is to happen to human kind would be the impact of a
mini or longer ice age. We are an ice planet. Remember 1947
and then 1963 winters and then the three years of cooler summers? Agriculture was really hit badly. There were famines
around the world. Depending on where you lived. I was in Lincoln and it’s a mild region and we had water restrictions because the rain didn’t come. So pray for the temperatures to go up a few degrees, as you’ll get nice rain that will grown
food properly. There is another site Ice not Fire will kill us
Al. It’s on the web.
10
Bush bunny:
February 6th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Greenhouse Gases—–>Global Warming—->Climate Change—>Carbon Pollution—->?????? take a guess
10
Baa Humbug – the mind boggles LOL
Over population? Zero population growth to prevent polluting the planet more than we have. The tragedy is developed countries are cutting down on their birth rate because it takes two people now to pay off a mortgage.
It’s like that T Shirt with on one side “Bring back that Olde religion’ and on the other side is a picture of Stone Henge. Worn at peril in a red neck State of the US!?
How about a T shirt to read “How to decrease CO 2 emissions? – Stop breathing”
10
Bush Bunny (#46): “How about a T shirt to read ‘How to decrease CO 2 emissions? – Stop breathing'”
Somewhere someone will have to adopt “Take My Breath Away” as a theme song.
10
Hi janama; that “information is power” or whatever website is rubbish; their 2nd graph showing a decline in atmospheric levels of CO2 in the 1940s is wrong; CO2 didn’t decline but the rate of increase did during that period so that is wrong for starters; the Hockeystick comparison is rubbish; the MWP was world-wide, as was the LIA, which definitely had a solar causation; and Humbug’s point at 28 has been nailed by this study;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/abs/nature08769.html
The Frank paper clearly shows that the sensitivity of the carbon cycle to temp increases is tiny; so the usual heating ‘schedule’ used by AGW: heating – CO2 – release – further heating – more CO2 release etc; is nonsense because little CO2 is released from temp increases so past heating was not ramped up by this cycle; the argument that ACO2 is doing the ramping this time cannot be right because of this paper:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml
Knorr shows that the ratio of airbourne ACO2 has not changed which means the climate sensitivity to extra CO2 is zilch.
10
I’d like a t-shirt depicting a pile of black coal with the caption…
BURN BABY BURN
10
Further to the avalanche of responses to Janama (look what you started lol)
Co2 is CO2, nature doesn’t distinguish between anthropogenic and “natural”. Real Climate needs to talk to a chemical engineer.
Whether CO2 comes from an internal combustion engine or a burning forest or the breath of an animal, the chemical reaction is all the same….e.g. C4H10 + O2 —> H2O + CO2 + Heat This is what takes place in our metabolism.
Their claim that ACO2 persists in the atmosphere for thousands of years is not just wrong, it’s an outright lie and they know it.
Gavin Schmidt of Real Climate stated that they don’t know where the CO2 comes from. They think it’s NOT the oceans because they believe the oceans are a nett sink. (They have to believe that else their theory falls flat on it’s face)
10
Bulldust:
February 6th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
I have a lot of respect for Svensmark
10
Bush bunny & Baa Humbug:
Population growth naturally declines as longevity and prosperity increase. This is well demonstrated with UN statistics and masterfully presented by the somewhat geeky Dr Hans Rosling:
http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-stops-population-growth/
Economic development is the only factor known to halt population growth (which is associated with better health and smaller families), and that economic development comes with increased energy consumption per capita. The latter is usually utilising the cheapest energy forms (i.e. fossil fuels) which results in increased CO2 emissions.
You honestly think the Brazilians, Indians and Chinese are going to stop building coal-fired power stations and building their economies because a few kommissars in the EU claim it will destroy the planet? Methinks not, cos the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, india, China) governments are not stupid.
10
While skeptical views seem to be on the rise our ABC continues down its predictable pathway…see
Un-skeptical-reporting-on-climate
10
Baa Humbug
“Gavin Schmidt of Real Climate stated that they don’t know where the CO2 comes from. They think it’s NOT the oceans because they believe the oceans are a nett sink. (They have to believe that else their theory falls flat on it’s face)”
Notice that it is a case of “Belief” that the oceans are a nett sink. Belief sassumes primacy in sciences that have wandered off into the deductive method as a result of a previous disconnection from physical reality.
The disconnect occurred when the idea of climate sensitivity was proposed, and to this day, we still don’t know for sure what it is, according to the arguments for and against David Stockwell posted yesterday.
The only way to do this is to do a physical experiment in a lab and no one seems to want to do it, or their grounding the the physical sciences, specifically chemistry and physics, is poor, and so don’t actually understand the issues very well. Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician, not a scientist, so I am not surprised he settles for a belief, since that is what his whole training is based on – a belief system of logic.
Actually a lot of science has been captured by the mathematicians which caused thosed sciences to wander off into the “virtual reality” of mathematical modelling, and climate science seems to have particularly fallen into this trap.
Being essentially a belief system, it is, then, no wonder that significant changes in belief in AGW occurs. If it were a demonstrable scientific fact, then there would not be any sceptics.
As Fred Hoyle wrote last century, paraphrasing him, when a large number of scientists, with equally large research budgets, after many decades of research, are involved in a science characterised by disputation, then it is quite likely that the problem is being studied with the wrong ideas.
This is the case for climate science today – we are using the wrong ideas.
10
[…] that's worked in general on the Web for the last decade and a half. Meanwhile as Tim Blair notes, "watch those numbers move …"(Originally posted at Ed […]
10
BWAAAHAHAHA
“Global Warming will COOK the eggs of sea turtles in the Great barrier Reef”
A new study finds that for the world’s largest population of sea turtles — in Australia’s northern Great Barrier Reef — blazing hot sands pose the greatest threat to the animals’ breeding success over the long term.
But HERE you can see Great barrier Reefs temperature and sea level graphs for the past 40yrs.
Reel in the grants from government suckers. Nice caper if you can get it.
10
What can the BBC conclude from these results?
“Nobody listens to us anymore!”
10
Dr. William Sprigg was head of the International Technical Review Panel for IPCC’s first report speaks here about Climategate.
@5:06 in the video:
Watch the video in full because some of Sprigg’s closing answers indicate a substantial bifurcation (“tipping point”) in mood amongst those usually out of the limelight.
10
hey anybody else notice the influx of “hey I noticed your website when searching for weather ballons” posts? Lots of ’em in the Recent Comments page.
I wouldn’t click on their links
10
I kid you not, from my post above about sea turtles, one of the scientists is named……..”It would be really interesting to use the tool in different areas,” said Marianne Fish, program leader for the Marine Turtle and Climate Change Program at the World Wildlife Fund.
Fish studies turtles in Latin America and the Caribbean, and suggests the ranking of threats may be different in her region.
What’s in a name? LMFAO
10
Rereke (12)you say that methane is a greenhouse gas. Please provide some proof (do not point to the US EPA which only points to the IPCC which provides no proof). I have asked a number of respected scientists including respected climate scientists and they have not provided a proof. The absorption/emission spectra of CH4 is very narrow in comparison to CO2 which is in turn very narrow in comparison to H2O vapour. As Lord Monckton would say “do not believe, check for yourself” There is negligible CH4 in the atmosphere (about 1.5 parts per billion) and absorption spectrum compared to water vapour is insignificant so together it makes no contribution to anything and rightly as the respected scientists say can be ignored. All the words on methane are a diversion and another green inspired beat-up in case the CO2 scare falls over.
10
From the You Gotta see it to Believe it department.
Some of us on this thread were talking about what comes after climate change. Well here it is, published in PEER FRIGGING REVIEWED JOURNALS.
GEOENGINEERING
These wacky climate scientists think they know enough about the earths climate to now want to stuff around with “engineering” it to suit us humans. UN %$@#ing Believable.
So, show of hands who would like to let Jones, Briffa Mann Pitman Hansen et al stuff around with geoengineering.
It has to be said again…..UN *%&$#ING BELIEVABLE
10
Poll: What impact do you think human activity is having on climate change?
http://polldaddy.com/p/2437952
10
Baa Humbug:
Re “hey I noticed your website …”
It’s a spammer apparently based in Hong Kong, according to whois information, hosted by PCCW Business Internet Access, also in HK. The domain is registered to a “Rosemary Tsui” of “General Consolidated Impex, Ltd” with an office in Kowloon; if the whois data are accurate. The company has more than a dozen other domain names registered to it; with web sited hosted by various other providers globally.
Joanne should have details of IP addreses from which spam originated. If they match subnet 202.82.0.0/16, then it’s likely the same ISP being used for this spamming/phishing run. The ISP of the offending domain should be alerted. ISP’s risk having their subnets black-listed if they are seen to be harbouring spammers and similar criminals.
10
Baa Humbug: “Global Warming will COOK the eggs of sea turtles in the Great barrier Reef”
Got to admire the rent-seekers’ ability to come up with nothing more than a veneer of an argument. Anybody who knocks will find it ring hollow; if not crumble on contact.
Do they believe that most Aussies have never built sand-castles on a hot beach and exerienced first-hand, the rapid drop in temperature as the top few centimetres of sand are moved away? I suspect that the turtles also take note; having evolved and thrived during times when it was significantly warmer than today.
10
Too true Felschie, the slow blighters dig whilst sensing the temp with their nose. They may have to dig an extra centimetre or two.
Hey,why don’t we come up with a Global waring scam or two? Theres gold in them thar hills.
10
I remember one. The whole post was equivalent to saying, “Hi, I’m here.” To which said to myself, “So what?” and then moved on.
Either you say something or you say nothing. If you say nothing then you deserve to be dismissed. End of story.
It’s interesting, however that the source is Hong Kong, which as we all know, is now firmly controlled by China.
10
Here’s my own observation of human nature for whatever it’s worth.
We’re herd animals like any other and we need to fit into the group. And that we’re not one homogeneous herd doesn’t change that basic fact. But unlike animal herds we also need someone to tell us what to do (a great abdication of personal responsibility). To me, most people are looking for a savior. Thus we elect all sorts of politicians and send them to the halls of government where they begin to meddle in every aspect of life. And we let them do it! Nowhere has this been demonstrated any better than the fact that many have called Barack Obama, “Messiah.” I won’t go on about what that means.
Our need to fit in however is even worse than you might think. If someone with the appearance of authority (scientists, presidents, governors, et al) says something is true then we need to believe what we’re told. Throw in the opportunist and the dishonest and we go downhill even faster.
And I mean “need” in exactly its literal sense. It seems to be built in.
The lone wolf type who prefers to do some critical thinking before buying rather than repenting after buying…well we are small minority, very small (a genetic aberration? just kidding). But getting hit over the head repeatedly with the truth tends to correct the problem. And the word is getting out. The question is how many will it convince?
I admit that this simplifies things. Humans are complex and behavior changes according to circumstances. For instance, two people who would rather destroy each other can suddenly join forces to fight a common threat. But I think it’s a good basic reading of how the human being is put together.
10
From junkscience.com some interesting numbers for public opinion to consider:
10
The link between the CRU, WWF and HSBC. It’s all falling into place.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategate_is_it_criminal_1.html
10
The latest gate has just been opened:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/and-now-for-africagate.html
“Even the mildest critics of the IPCC and Dr Pachauri might now be moved to observe that they have eschewed uncertainty, to project the most pessimistic scenario imaginable – with no scientific support and a great deal of embellishment. After “Climategate”, “Glaciergate”, “Amazongate” and now “Africagate” can either survive?”
10
ok,
I’m about to encourage bet making on where the next revelation is coming from as the whole AGW thing comes crashing down.
Where is the next part of IPCC AR4 going to come crumbling down. Any takers?
Let’s start a sweepstake and enjoy the show.
I have the popcorn.
10
SUBJECT: POLL IN THE AUSTRALIAN ON GLOBAL WARMING 28/1/2010
There is a poll on The Australian newspaper website:-
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/polls
“How much do you trust scientific projections concerning global warming?”
* Completely 8.4% (859 votes)
* Somewhat 10.57% (1081 votes)
* A little 13.69% (1400 votes)
* Not at all 67.34% (6886 votes)
Total votes: 10226
10
YouTube – Lord Monckton – Brisbane Debate. Video 1/9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGXngQDgAPY
10
dear oh dear,
foolishily put on abc landline while reading your blog. there was your friend pitman going on about there’s not the slightest doubt about AGW, just a minor error that changes nothing….or whatever… no program is safe on auntie!
10
SUBJECT: MORE IPCC FRAUDULENT CLAIMS REVEALED – AFRICAGATE
And now for Africagate
Following an investigation by this blog (and with the story also told in The Sunday Times), another major “mistake” in the IPCC’s benchmark Fourth Assessment Report has emerged.
Similar in effect to the erroneous “2035” claim – the year the IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers were going to melt – in this instance we find that the IPCC has wrongly claimed that in some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.
At best, this is a wild exaggeration, unsupported by any scientific research, referenced only to a report produced by a Canadian advocacy group, written by an obscure Moroccan academic who specialises in carbon trading, citing references which do not support his claims.
Unlike the glacier claim, which was confined to a section of the technical Working Group II report, this “50 percent by 2020” claim forms part of the key Synthesis Report, the production of which was the personal responsibility of the chair of the IPCC, Dr R K Pachauri. It has been repeated by him in many public fora. He, therefore, bears a personal responsibility for the error.
READ MOR HERE:-
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/and-now-for-africagate.html
10
SUBJECT: MANDATORY HOME ENERGY ASSESSMENT – THE GREEN POLICE
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/open_up_its_the_green_police/
http://www.news.com.au/money/governments-switched-on-energy-move/story-e6frfmci-1225827485299
HAVE A READ OF THIS COMMUNIST PROPOSAL!
I KNOW WHAT I’LL DO WHEN THEY COME AROUND – IT WON’T BE PRETTY!
$1,500 energy assessment
Applies to all types of properties
‘A positive move for the industry’
ALL Australian homes will soon have to undergo a mandatory energy-efficiency assessment costing up to $1500 per property.
The assessment has to be done before any property can be sold or rented under new laws to tackle carbon emissions.
The mandatory assessment – being drafted into law by the federal and state governments – will rate homes by an energy efficiency star system, similar to the ratings given to fridges and washing machines.
It will apply to all commercial properties from later this year and to all residential properties from May 2011, Adelaide Now reports.
A spokesman for State Energy Minister Pat Conlon said the ratings would inform prospective owners or tenants of a building’s energy use, so they could factor it in to their buying or rental decision.
The spokesman said details of the “Mandatory Disclosure” scheme – including who would carry out the assessments and how much they would cost – were yet to be decided.
Energy efficiency expert Arthur Grammatopoulos, of Helica Architecture, said rating properties could cost up to $1500 per house.
“I think this is a positive move for the industry but the question has to be asked, will there be enough experts to cope with demand when the law is introduced?” he said.
A similar scheme with a six-star rating has been operating in the Australian Capital Territory’s property market for several years.
Queensland’s State Government introduced a mandatory Sustainability Declaration form on January 1, requiring homeowners to declare their property’s green credentials to prospective buyers or risk a $2000 fine.
Mandatory disclosure has been criticised by property experts as an unwarranted expense that will not influence purchasing decisions or cut household pollution.
The Real Estate Institute of SA said governments were playing environmentally “popular politics” by introducing a law that they say will simply add to the cost of selling and renting a home.
“I think they are patronising people who are making the biggest purchase decision of their life by thinking a rating system will influence that decision,” REISA chief executive Greg Troughton said.
“It’s already hard enough to buy and sell a home and this is just another financial impost that also has the potential to delay the sale of a property.”
While Mr Troughton said vendors would bear the cost of having their home rated by a licensed expert, independent SA MLC and former Valuer-General John Darley said landlords would look to pass the cost on to tenants.
“This will be an extra cost to working families who have to rent because they can’t afford a mortgage,” he said.
“And we need this like a hole in the head unless the governments can convince us there is a definite benefit, like a reduction in household pollution.”
The Council of Australian Government’s National Strategy on Energy Efficiency says Mandatory Disclosure will “help households and businesses prepare for the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”.
10
I’d better start up an Energy Assessment company right away or can I convert my shonky insulation company, or my solar panel company? 🙂
10
A recent news story about Earth’s variable heat source – the Sun – also shows seismic shifts in the opinions of scientists in the National Academy of Sciences, the Naval Research Laboratory, NASA Headquarters, Goddard Spaceflight Center, and the University of Colorado:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/05feb_sdo.htm?list1073366
Solar Dynamics Observatory: The ‘Variable Sun’ Mission
“February 5, 2010: For some years now, an unorthodox idea has been gaining favor among astronomers. It contradicts old teachings and unsettles thoughtful observers, especially climatologists.
“The sun,” explains Lika Guhathakurta of NASA headquarters in Washington DC, “is a variable star.”
But it looks so constant…”
From NAS: “According to a 2008 study by the National Academy of Sciences, a century-class solar storm could cause twenty times more economic damage than Hurricane Katrina.”
From NRL: “Understanding solar variability is crucial,” says space scientist Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab in Washington DC. “Our modern way of life depends upon it.”
From NRL: “‘Solar constant’ is an oxymoron,” says Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab. “Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”
From Goddard Spaceflight Center: “Understanding the inner workings of the solar dynamo has long been a ‘holy grail’ of solar physics,” says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
From Boulder, CO: “If human eyes could see EUV wavelengths, no one would doubt that the sun is a variable star,” says Tom Woods of the University of Colorado in Boulder.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
10
This is just beginning. You don’t have to be a genius to surmise that as the opinions of millions of registered voters changes so, too, will the politicians. The election of Scott Brown to fill the senate seat vacated by the death of Senator Kennedy has caused a phenomenal change in the political landscape in the U.S. Far too much money has been squandered on this scam to see it quietly swept under the rug. In Pennsylvania the academia of Penn State are trying to whitewash the Mann investigation but I believe the attempt will backfire. As the state congress in Pennsylvania is controlled by the Republicans the party will not allow the whitewash to succeed and will, if necessary, follow through on their threat to cut off the funding that the university so desperately needs. I am still waiting to see who will roll over first. My guess is that it will probably be Keith Briffa as he seemed to be pained by a lot of what transpired even if he was one of the key conspirators. If not, I am confident some scientist will be motivated by self preservation, greed, revenge or something else to turn state’s evidence. I am still predicting indictments to be handed up on both sides of the Atlantic.
The misanthropic greens have caused the deaths of millions. They refuse to allow African and other third world countries to industrialize. They have stymied the use of DDT and the result has been the death of millions of the poorest of the poor, particularly women and children from malaria and other mosquito borne diseases. The fact is that it is perfectly safe to use and there is not one case on record of anybody ever dying of exposure to DDT. These fools will try to find another Trojan horse to peddle their one world socialist agenda. In the meantime, these climate criminals are busy squandering money fighting a phantom menace that could have been spent finding a cure for cancer or AIDS, providing clean drinking water to the poor or even providing a little relief to the savaged taxpayers. I believe if Shakespeare were alive today he would write, “First, lets kill all the climate scientists.” Henry VI would need to be retitled “Pachauri I.” Whether or not Henry was a legitimate king he at least he had the courage to face his enemy which is more than IO can say about “Asbestos” Pachauri.
10
Excuse the typos, I am tired and will check back in the morning. Good night everybody!
10
Good one Oliver Manuel (79). I appreciate your web site and sharing your knowledge
http://www.omatumr.com/
Bill (76) there is an article on this on WUPT http://wattsupwiththat.com/ which has a link to a Times article.
The IPCC days are numbered.
I wonder how long it will be before the Indian Government announces they will withdraw and do their own research as has been rumored.
10
To Madjak,
I have no idea what the next IPCC error highlighted will be, but there is one that should be exposed – the length of time that it takes atmospheric CO2 (both natural and man-made) to turn over (I presume for the bulk, say 90%). The IPCC uses the 100 year figure, from only one study as far as I know, which differs enormously from the 3-12 year periods (median 5-8 years) that the vast bulk of studies have shown (to my knowledge of photosynthesis work). C14 takes a little longer I think. The big issue is that the 100-year figure is the basis for a) much concern about longevity of this gas and b) Western guilt for putting all this greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Of course the Greens then exaggerate this 100-year figure even further. Can anyone here give me the correct atmospheric lifetime for CO2, say to turn over 90% of the volume?
10
Mudcrab #83
Tom Segaldstad wrote “Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma.” which is downloadable from http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf.
(Tom V. Segalstad ; Mineralogical-Geological Museum University of Oslo Sars’ Gate 1, N-0562 Oslo Norway).
It has what you are looking for, I hope.
10
Times online reporting Phil Jones has contemplated suicide
10
Cement a friend: Composition of our atmosphere?
Nitrogen 78.08%
Oxygen 20.93%
Argon 0.93%
Neon, Helium, Krypton (? Thought that was Superman’s planet)0001%
CO2 0.038%
Water vapor >0.4%
Methane CH4 (trace
Sulfur Dioxide trace
Ozone trace
Nit.Oxides (NO, NO2) trace
I would hazard a guess that methane (as the Greens state is a trace element in greenhouse gases)and as the Greens and Vegans TV adds on SBS state will contribute to global warming too? Adverts state “If Carbon Emissions ceased tomorrow methane from farm animals will still cause global warming LOL, that’s why they want us to all become vegetarian. Well if another ice age starts, we might be keeping animals more as veggies will be harder to grow.
As Henrik’s states clouds govern our climate. I enjoyed that
U Tube report, and the same is stated in ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. Clouds are stimulated by Cosmic radiation or rays and Solar activity deflects them. The Great Global Warming Swindle (takes one hour) is on U Tube. The Canadian Report is towards the end… If AGW scientists don’t know this
or have chosen to ignore it, then they aren’t very good scientists in my view. A lot of academic jealousy involved in suppressing reports of Henriks studies and the like.
Especially when scientists or others are being paid to substantiate AGW and ETS taxation.
10
Baa Humbug: Yes that’s right, but he still stands by his science
100%? Claims he didn’t know about FOI legislation. Hang on if
he stands by his science 100% why would he be worried about any
FOI request?
10
Times online report on Phil Jones’ suicide contemplation:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece
What I find really interesting is the comments left by people. Obviously the English public are deeply angered by what their media have shown them (something called the truth, apparently). I sense some embarrassment there also.
I can see exactly this sort of anger being directed at a lot of people down under one the truth gets out down here.
I do find it amusing when ignoramus operandi jump on and start blathering one about the overwhelming scientific evidence of AGW. Now the public are stomping on them. They’re like moths to a flame. They think they can get away with it and sound all important, but they just get stomped.
I sure wouldn’t want to be on the AGW side of the fence when this one hits. I wonder if there is anyone in the Aussie media wondering if they have made a major mistake here.
10
The man is a fraud. I have no sympathy. He doesn’t have the guts to do it so no worries there.
I don’t condone threats. Phil Jones however should understand that he is/was an integral in playing with the livelyhood of millions of people. Because of his fraud, billions have been diverted away from legitimate environmental and humanitarian pursuits. Not to mention the fact that it will take a generation or two before legitimate science recovers.
And what will happen if a REAL impending calamity was to be uncovered in the coming years? Who will believe it? Who will relinquish money to research it?
The man belongs in jail, period. (I’ll give him a couple of years off his sentence if he comes completely clean, names names and agendas) otherwise he can tell his AGW stories to his new cell mate/bosom buddy BIG BUBBA
10
SUBJECT: MALCOM TURNCOAT
That traitor Turnbull is going to join Labor and vote FOR the ETS
hahaha what a fool.
Nobody in parliament (both Sides) will ever forget it if he does and he will never be leader.
He must owe someone a lot of debt or else have plans to make a lot of money from an ETS.
10
Baa Humbug,
I agree, but he isn’t the only one. Let’s not give these people a Martyr to focus on. Can you imagine what the ABC would interpret his suicide as?
I think they all need to be debunked, every single pillar of their theory needs to be ripped apart and put into the public spotlight.
10
Well maybe the Lib politician he displaced by stealth might lend a hand. I’ve never liked Turnbull, and I hope he gets a backlash from his constituents because of this. The pollie he replaced or ejected was acting for Peter Spencer, who has now been evicted because he owes family lots of money. Now this ETS scheme stealth tax will take on an even more political turn. It will be Turner et al, to make Abbott look a fool. Dangerous ground I feel.
Interesting few articles, the carbon trading scam. Google it. India was trying to say last year the shares were plummeting. The Toronto Sun asst.editor Goldstein warned about it this year.
Also some pension schemes have invested in it. Whoa – no wonder
they want to keep the AGW scam alive. This needs someone with
economic know-how to investigate. Seems the Toronto Sun article suggests there are police investigating rorts in the EU.
Go for it bloodhounds!
10
SUBJECT: How UK Met Office blocked questions on its own man’s role in ‘hockey stick’ climate row
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249035/How-Met-Office-blocked-questions-mans-role-hockey-stick-climate-row.html#ixzz0eqNgPWTp
The Meteorological Office is blocking public scrutiny of the central role played by its top climate scientist in a highly controversial report by the beleaguered United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Professor John Mitchell, the Met Office’s Director of Climate Science, shared responsibility for the most worrying headline in the 2007 Nobel Prize-winning IPCC report – that the Earth is now hotter than at any time in the past 1,300 years.
And he approved the inclusion in the report of the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, showing centuries of level or declining temperatures until a steep 20th Century rise.
By the time the 2007 report was being written, the graph had been heavily criticised by climate sceptics who had shown it minimised the ‘medieval warm period’ around 1000AD, when the Vikings established farming settlements in Greenland.
In fact, according to some scientists, the planet was then as warm, or even warmer, than it is today.
Early drafts of the report were fiercely contested by official IPCC reviewers, who cited other scientific papers stating that the 1,300-year claim and the graph were inaccurate.
But the final version, approved by Prof Mitchell, the relevant chapter’s review editor, swept aside these concerns.
Now, the Met Office is refusing to disclose Prof Mitchell’s working papers and correspondence with his IPCC colleagues in response to requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The block has been endorsed in writing by Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth – whose department has responsibility for the Met Office.
Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal that the Met Office’s stonewalling was part of a co-ordinated, legally questionable strategy by climate change academics linked with the IPCC to block access to outsiders.
Last month, the Information Commissioner ruled that scientists from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia – the source of the leaked ‘Warmergate’ emails – acted unlawfully in refusing FOI requests to share their data.
Some of the FOI requests made to them came from the same person who has made requests to the Met Office.
He is David Holland, an electrical engineer familiar with advanced statistics who has written several papers questioning orthodox thinking on global warming.
The Met Office’s first response to Mr Holland was a claim that Prof Mitchell’s records had been ‘deleted’ from its computers.
Later, officials admitted they did exist after all, but could not be disclosed because they were ‘personal’, and had nothing to do with the professor’s Met Office job.
Finally, they conceded that this too was misleading because Prof Mitchell had been paid by the Met Office for his IPCC work and had received Government expenses to travel to IPCC meetings.
The Met Office had even boasted of his role in a Press release when the report first came out.
But disclosure, they added, was still rejected on the grounds it would ‘inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or the free and frank provision of views’.
It would also ‘prejudice Britain’s relationship with an international organisation’ and thus be contrary to UK interests.
In a written response justifying the refusal dated August 20, 2008, Mr Ainsworth – then MoD Minister of State – used exactly the same language.
Mr Holland also filed a request for the papers kept by Sir Brian Hoskins of Reading University, who was the review editor of a different chapter of the IPCC report.
When this too was refused, Mr Holland used the Data Protection Act to obtain a copy of an email from Sir Brian to the university’s information officer.
The email, dated July 17, 2008 – when Mr Holland was also trying to get material from the Met Office and the CRU – provides clear evidence of a co-ordinated effort to hide data. Sir Brian wrote:
‘I have made enquiries and found that both the Met Office/MOD and UEA are resisting the FOI requests made by Holland. The latter are very relevant to us, as UK universities should speak with the same voice on this. I gather that they are using academic freedom as their reason.’
At the CRU, as the Warmergate emails reveal, its director, Dr Phil Jones (who is currently suspended), wrote to an American colleague:
‘[We are] still getting FOI requests as well as Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions – not to respond.’
Last night Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the affair further undermined the credibility of the IPCC and those associated with it. He said:
‘It’s of critical importance that data such as this should be open. More importantly, the questions being raised about the hockey stick mean that we may have to reassess the climate history of the past 2,000 years.
‘The attempt to make the medieval warm period disappear is being seriously weakened, and the claim that now is the warmest time for 1,300 years is no longer based on reliable evidence.’
Despite repeated requests, the MoD and Met Office failed to comment.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249035/How-Met-Office-blocked-questions-mans-role-hockey-stick-climate-row.html#ixzz0esmRDTpm
10
SUBJECT: FRAUDELENT reporting about the Northwest Passage issue.
I am so tired about hearing the Northwest Passage is open first time ever !
Bad reporting about the Northwest Passage issue
The BBC dramatically reported on September 14 that: “The most direct shipping route from Europe to Asia is fully clear of ice for the first time since records began.” They are a bit dicey about when those records began or what records they are referring to. In fact it is satellite records of the passage that were started in 1978. So they mean for the first time since 1978. They leave out the date for the start of the records. Note: The report now mentions 1978, if it was there when I read it two days ago I didn’t see it. However, many, many other reports have left the date out.
The first time!!!! Really? How can they say that? They actually reported on September 10, 2000 that: “A Canadian police patrol boat has completed a voyage through the fabled Northwest Passage without encountering any pack ice.”
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/09/bad-reporting-about-northwest-passage.html
10
Louis @84,
I’ve read the document you pointed out to Mudcrab. I’m not enough of a physicist or chemist to validate everything the author says. But I’m no dummy either and it looks like sound stuff. If this holds up it appears to throw the whole IPCC right into its own document shredder. Am I missing something and if so, what? And what’s your opinion of the author’s position?
Thanks
Roy
10
Bill @ 94
You wrote, “I am so tired about hearing the Northwest Passage is open first time ever !’
So am I. BTW, the link you posted is the best I have seen on the issue, thank you.
10
Again Bill and Eddy, the North West Passage. Are they off their
blocks! No openings since 1978. No true. It is a seasonal passage at best. There are territorial attempts by the Canadian Government over this and they don’t like the American’s sailing nuclear submarines via the passage as obviously it is too close to their shores. No doubt the Canadian patrol boats were on a mission, who knows? Politics driving global warming again perhaps?
Any sailing via the NW Passage must gain the Canadian Governments permission. One recent explorer (20th Century), noted that the passage was very shallow in parts and this might effect a ship’s ability to pass through.
The politics surrounding and involving this Climate Warming
debacle is getting frantic I feel.
I still think that those investors in carbon credit trading
including the BBC pension fund, are worried. I wonder if
the Australian governments are also involved too?
Goldman Sachs is involved too. Now I ask “What is driving Climate change – money” And International competition in wind
energy, nuclear oil and gas exploration off shore. (As Obama stated in his address to the Union) For what end result – well it will make trillions for the USA, China etc., but won’t effect our climate one way or another.
If Obama, Rudd and Brown get in again, particularly the last two, I will lose faith in democracy. Although Cameron isn’t
saying much about this climate debacle. But the Independent
Party is, and Lord Monckton intends to stand as a candidate I believe?
10
Roy, #95
Like Segalstad I’m also a geologist except my area is in diamond geology and kimberlites. His analysis is basically on the mark, and it’s the misunderestanding of the CO2 cycle by the AGW people that’s the problem. Most of them have little or no grounding in the hard physical sciences, most graduating from the geography side of academia that is dominated by the social sciences.
No, you are not missing anything, and your conclusion re the IPCC is spot on.
I personally don’t think the science is based on some conspiracy but on the fact that science seems to have become disconnected from physical reality, in this case climate sensitivity. Rather than being verified experimentally, climate science assumed it to be correct, obvious, etc, and then used the scientific method to start deducing outcomes, ending up as an enormous intellectual structure that is basically a technically sophisticated belief system. This type of science is basically pseudoscience, but most of its adherents don’t realise it as they have replaced physical reality with their mathematical models, which when confronted with physical reality, such as the Trenberth “travesty” climategate email, then prompts them to suspect there is something wrong with the data, when they should have immediately questioned the theory in the first place.
That’s why there is so much acrimony between the protagonists, and one reason is that it’s old Platonists-Aristotellian argument, Plato’s followers believing truths are determined by expert discussion or dialectics, and the Atistoellians maintaining that truth is an objective fact determined by experiment.
And that’s why it won’t die quickly because it is a conflict between two world views.
Rather we should be focussing on the draft Copenhagen treaty, because when it was put up on the UN website, it had already passed a couple of rounds of governmental negotiation, and that means that the UK, Canada, Australia and the US representatives must have agreed to setting up that unelected world government modelled on the EU but based in the UN. Our bureaucrats were prepared to sign away our freedom for the specious reason of CO2 emissions.
This is where we have to take the fight to, not haggling over CO2 levels.
10
Louis I’m shortly off to bed, having spent hours lobbying with politicians and sending letters to the editors etc.
We the so called skeptics must keep lobbying our politicians, pointing out the political agendas underlying these fraudulent scientific reports by powerful political parties including the UN IPCC reports, etc. and those that supported and supplied these reports now all found wanting and possibly very fraudulently contrived with hidden political agendas.
And supported by Carbon Trading Credits investors. Don’t forget them they are driving this AGW to get investors and dividends. They appear to be plummeting in value. Because these
ETS taxes or Cap and Trade doesn’t appear to have the support it should to support their investments and ultimately their dividends. Too tired now to give much more to this blog. God bless you, the ‘Truth will Out’ eventually.
God bless and remember ‘It only needs a few good men (and women) to do nothing for evil to … win?”
10
Louis,
Thanks for the reply.
My interest is more than just curiosity or desire to learn — I’ve become a bit of a political activist myself and I’m looking for material I might send to a few politicians who have an open mind or are leaning the right way to fight this nonsense. Nothing succeeds faster than being confronted with the truth repeatedly from authoritative sources. My saying something has very little weight by comparison.
Unfortunately this Segalstad paper is probably way above the science knowledge of most in the political world (which is our problem in the first place!).
I’ve sent the link to Joanne’s timeline to several people but it suffers from being too big and unwieldy. I asked Joanne if it could be put into text form with references for each item right with the item. She replied,
So we need a volunteer with nothing to do and all day to do it. That’s certainly not me.
If you know of anything else that I can use as I propose above let me know.
10
Roy,
While the timeline rehash is a monumental job, I would send the well publicised analysis of the climate gate emails our Australian Physicist wrote probably the best summary for your purpose.
10
Steve? I call it character assassination too. If you can’t argue against the truth and the factual accounts they are promoting, then you character assassinate the speaker. ‘Pop eye’ the Dotty aristocrat,(Lord Christopher Monckton) the Mad Monk (re Tony Abbott) such labels are not necessary. And unfortunately those who know the truth, realise the more non sensical abuse thrown at these people who are trying to do the human race a big favor are now being more believed. It is counter productive from their point of view in my belief.
I believe, Malcolm Turnbull or Turn coat, has heavily invested
in Carbon Credit trading, now the Aust government without their
ETS bill being passed, are looking at gross amounts of losses just with the rebates they have given out to people who have invested in solar panels hoping they can sell their carbon credits to others and make a profit… isn’t going to happen.
I would like in fact I have requested, my local parliamentarians
to pose the question in the Federal government. “Hands up those of you who have invested in Carbon Credits Trading Investments (that are plummeting) and ask them if this should
influence their votes endorsing ETS or Cap and Trade legislations. Maybe others could do the same?
10
With an obvious bias that nuclear energy ultimately heats the Earth, the Sun and sustains life, I offer the following names of knowledgeable reviewers that might serve on the new enquiry panel being organized by the University of East Anglia or to replace of Dr. Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature, on the enquiry panel chaired by Sir Muir Russell to investigate claims that scientists covered up and/or distorted data on global temperatures.
1. Dr. Stephen O. Dean, editor, Journal of Fusion Energy.
2. Dr. Tibor Braun, editor, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry.
3. Professor Freeman Dyson of Princeton University.
4. Dr. David Whitehouse, science news reporter.
5. Dr. Benny Peiser, editor of CCN, Cambridge Conference Network.
6. Lord Nigel Lawson, Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
7. Dr. Yurii G. Abov, editor, Physics of Atomic Nuclei (Yadernaya Fizika).
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Sciences
Former NASA PI for Apollo
10
I’ve liked reading through these types of blogs. Exciting stuff! Solar energy has constantly been a fascination with me.
10
Gud on you Marni. Sad thing is Australia has run out of solar panels now importing from the US of A. Well President Obama said
they would compete with Europe and China in clean energy manufacturing. This includes nuclear (God forbid) off shore drilling for gas and oil and employing thousands in making solar
panels.
Obviously Australia can’t keep up with the demand, so the money goes in trade to the US of A!
We are captives in a world that says Clean energy will Save the Planet. Bulsshh. Of course if the so called purists would have their way we’d get rid of our cattle and sheep as they emit methane, (burping and farting) that dissipates anyway quickly and their manure nourishes the soil and if managed properly will reduce the need for fertilizers.
10
Prof. (Emeritus) Manuel, are you suggesting that nuclear energy
is a trusted energy supplier. And renewable, according to Richard S. Courtney nuclear is not renewable. I am a bit ignorant of this, but what alarms me, is that nuclear plants require 200 million liters per day to keep them cool.
In Australia we haven’t that amount of water available unless we tap our underground aquifers. And they are not renewable sources of water as they are not renewed by rain.
I am referring to a situation when there was an unusual heatwave in France and one of their older reactor’s wall reached 48 C
and the safety level was only 50C. They nearly had to shut it down. Maybe the newer reactors are not so heat sensitive, however in Australia. Our natural daily temps in some regions
are and can considerably reach higher than 40 C at certain times.
I wonder if you could honor us and answer this lay person’s question?
10
[…] is an inexact science, As the climate debate heats up the populace realise they’ve been conned, Police still trying to work out how to turn the computer on, India to form new climate change […]
10