'The Great Global Warming Swindle': Is Climate Change A Myth?

[Scunnerlugzzz]

In other news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm


"the Met Office said it would publish all the data from weather stations worldwide, which it said proved climate change was caused by humans."

Really? Weather data alone will prove what has caused climate change? Can't wait!!

Now call me niave, but I kinda thought that the Met Office weather stations gathered data on what was happening. I had no idea it could prove what caused it!

This kind of statement, from a body like the Met Office is precisely what is rotten at the heart of AGW "science".

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

In other news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm


"the Met Office said it would publish all the data from weather stations worldwide, which it said proved climate change was caused by humans."

Really? Weather data alone will prove what has caused climate change? Can't wait!!

Now call me niave, but I kinda thought that the Met Office weather stations gathered data on what was happening. I had no idea it could prove what caused it!

This kind of statement, from a body like the Met Office is precisely what is rotten at the heart of AGW "science".

Does it? Or does it just show a good example of bad journalism? No other organisation is reporting this claim.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

In other news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm


"the Met Office said it would publish all the data from weather stations worldwide, which it said proved climate change was caused by humans."

Really? Weather data alone will prove what has caused climate change? Can't wait!!

Now call me niave, but I kinda thought that the Met Office weather stations gathered data on what was happening. I had no idea it could prove what caused it!

This kind of statement, from a body like the Met Office is precisely what is rotten at the heart of AGW "science".

The article continues:

...

Its database is a main source of analysis for the IPCC.

It has written to 188 countries for permission to publish the material, dating back 160 years from more than 1,000 weather stations.

John Mitchell, head of climate science at the Met Office, said the evidence for man-made global warming was overwhelming - and the data would show that.

"So this is not an issue of whether we are confident or not in the figures for the trend in global warming, it's more about being open and transparent," he told the BBC.

...

You don't think that the Climate scientists have been pulling their theories of Climate Change out of their bottoms, without evidence to back them up, do you?

Releasing the data, hasn't that been one of the things that AGW deniers have been demanding, for years? Now you're saying that it's not good enough.

Are the goalposts on oiled casters? :lol:

 

[Timble2]

In other news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm


"the Met Office said it would publish all the data from weather stations worldwide, which it said proved climate change was caused by humans."

Really? Weather data alone will prove what has caused climate change? Can't wait!!

Now call me niave, but I kinda thought that the Met Office weather stations gathered data on what was happening. I had no idea it could prove what caused it!

This kind of statement, from a body like the Met Office is precisely what is rotten at the heart of AGW "science".

If you bothered to read what the Met Office actually said, you'd realise that's the journalist paraphrasing the statement, and getting it a bit wrong...

We are confident this subset will show that global average land temperatures have risen over the last 150 years.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/p ... 91205.html

 

[Scunnerlugzzz]

Sorry guys

"John Mitchell, head of climate science at the Met Office, said the evidence for man-made global warming was overwhelming - and the data would show that. "

And the data would show that!!

The Met Office data cannot possibly show that. Its rather sad that none of you picked up on that.

 

[Timble2]

OK where does that come from?

The written statement doesn't say that, so how do you know that's an accurate report of what he said...

BTW I don't think there's anything particularly dodgy in the e-mails, it reads like the usual scientific and academic rivalry and infighting...

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Sorry guys

"John Mitchell, head of climate science at the Met Office, said the evidence for man-made global warming was overwhelming - and the data would show that. "

And the data would show that!!

The Met Office data cannot possibly show that. Its rather sad that none of you picked up on that.

He's been misreported. There's no direct quotation from him containing this claim and no other news organisation has reported any such remark.

Neither the Met Office nor John Mitchell have said what you're claiming they've said.

 

[Scunnerlugzzz]

Oh dear, the link to the Beeb page is right there. The Beeb hardly has an anti AGW agenda now does it?
I'm only commenting on the article, which rings true to me.

Lets just say that all the BBC coverage on climate chage has been poor journalism and mis reporting then.


And BTW those emails point to data fixes and deletions of evidence. Thats not normal scientific rivalry i'm afraid.
:cry:

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Oh dear, the link to the Beeb page is right there. The Beeb hardly has an anti AGW agenda now does it?
I'm only commenting on the article, which rings true to me.

No you're not. You're commenting on the "kind of statement...[which] is precisely what is rotten at the heart of AGW "science"." And you're commenting that it's a statement made by the Met Office.

That's not a comment about the article, is it?

Lets just say that all the BBC coverage on climate chage has been poor journalism and mis reporting then.

No, Let's just say the bits which demonstrate poor journalism and misreporting are.

 

[Scunnerlugzzz]

You seem to have added some other points to your original post (which I quoted above).

Why on Earth can it not be a combination of natural factors?

Here is work on one factor, which I posted last week, well worth consideration.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=10783

Dodgy right-wing think tanks? Are they the ones who have been committing the cardinal sin of Science, fixing data to fit your theory, or was that AGW scientists?

Dodgy right-wing think tank is how The Heartland Institute could be described, with which Prof. Don J. Easterbrook, author of the above article, has previously been associated.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Don_Easterbrook
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

That ice is still melting.

I can see nothing in those two links which discredits this work?
Can you point it out?

The ice is still melting...thats what ice does, when its not forming.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...


And BTW those emails point to data fixes and deletions of evidence. Thats not normal scientific rivalry i'm afraid.
:cry:

Nothing like hacking e-mails, or burglarizing the offices of meteorologists and mining the data for stuff that can be taken and used out of context.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/dec/06/break-in-targets-climate-scientist

Break-in targets climate scientist

New incident raises fears of a smear campaign

The Observer, Robin McKie. 6 December 2009

Attempts have been made to break into the offices of one of Canada's leading climate scientists, it was revealed yesterday. The victim was Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and a key contributor to the work of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In one incident, an old computer was stolen and papers were disturbed.

In addition, individuals have attempted to impersonate technicians in a bid to access data from his office, said Weaver. The attempted breaches, on top of the hacking of files from British climate researcher Phil Jones, have heightened fears that climate-change deniers are mounting a campaign to discredit the work of leading meteorologists before the start of the Copenhagen climate summit tomorrow.

"The key thing is to try to find anybody who's involved in any aspect of the IPCC and find something that you can … take out of context," said Weaver. The prospect of more break-ins and hacking has forced researchers to step up computer security

...

8)

 

[Scunnerlugzzz]

Oh dear, the link to the Beeb page is right there. The Beeb hardly has an anti AGW agenda now does it?
I'm only commenting on the article, which rings true to me.

No you're not. You're commenting on the "kind of statement...[which] is precisely what is rotten at the heart of AGW "science"." And you're commenting that it's a statement made by the Met Office.

That's not a comment about the article, is it?

Lets just say that all the BBC coverage on climate chage has been poor journalism and mis reporting then.

No, Let's just say the bits which demonstrate poor journalism and misreporting are.

I rather think you would trust a pro AGW Beeb article to be accurate.
My comments have been made in a similar vein, assuming this wise reporter of climate change news to be an accurate reporter.
If as you insinuate it is not, then it really does cast doubt on many of their reports, or it should.

 

[Scunnerlugzzz]

...


And BTW those emails point to data fixes and deletions of evidence. Thats not normal scientific rivalry i'm afraid.
:cry:

Nothing like hacking e-mails, or burglarizing the offices of meteorologists and mining the data for stuff that can be taken and used out of context.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/dec/06/break-in-targets-climate-scientist

Break-in targets climate scientist

New incident raises fears of a smear campaign

The Observer, Robin McKie. 6 December 2009

Attempts have been made to break into the offices of one of Canada's leading climate scientists, it was revealed yesterday. The victim was Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and a key contributor to the work of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In one incident, an old computer was stolen and papers were disturbed.

In addition, individuals have attempted to impersonate technicians in a bid to access data from his office, said Weaver. The attempted breaches, on top of the hacking of files from British climate researcher Phil Jones, have heightened fears that climate-change deniers are mounting a campaign to discredit the work of leading meteorologists before the start of the Copenhagen climate summit tomorrow.

"The key thing is to try to find anybody who's involved in any aspect of the IPCC and find something that you can … take out of context," said Weaver. The prospect of more break-ins and hacking has forced researchers to step up computer security

...

8)

Ah, nothing like blaming the whistle-blowers.
Now there's a right-wing thing to do.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Dodgy right-wing think tank is how The Heartland Institute could be described, with which Prof. Don J. Easterbrook, author of the above article, has previously been associated.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Don_Easterbrook
..

I can see nothing in those two links which discredits this work?
Can you point it out?

...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Don_Easterbrook

... Josh Willis, a scientist who tracks ocean changes in relation to climate at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, rebuts Easterbrook's global cooling theory, which Willis says is based on a poor understanding of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Willis points out that while "its true that the PDO has brought cooler than normal temperatures to a big chunk of the Pacific off and on for most of the last 10 years", the PDO is not "a big see-saw that rocks back and forth, cooling and then warming the whole planet every 20 years. Sometimes it flips back after just 5 years and sometimes it stays pretty much the same for 25 or so. Furthermore, the so-called "cold phase" of the PDO is not exclusively cold. It also involves warmer than normal waters in the western and northern parts of the Pacific. So the effect of the PDO on global temperatures is not nearly as clear as it is for its smaller and better known cousins, El Nino and La Nina. It's a pretty wild statement to claim that the PDO data shows conclusively that global cooling will occur for the next 10 years." [3]

...

You may not agree with it, but it certainly refutes Eastbrook's work.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I rather think you would trust a pro AGW Beeb article to be accurate.
My comments have been made in a similar vein, assuming this wise reporter of climate change news to be an accurate reporter.
If as you insinuate it is not, then it really does cast doubt on many of their reports, or it should.

Not really. The BBC's no worse than most other news outlets. This is typical of the kind of petty mistakes which are made by low paid journalists put under far too much pressure to get an article into the public domain without checking their facts. At least they don't generally regurgitate Press Association copy the way most other providers of internet-based news do although in this occasionit might have been more accurate .

As a general rule it might be worthwhile to approach all media with doubt instead of simply looking for the bits which confirm our prejudices.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Ah, nothing like blaming the whistle-blowers.
Now there's a right-wing thing to do.

Break-ins are not whistle blowing, ask the Watergate burglars.

 

[Scunnerlugzzz]

...

Dodgy right-wing think tank is how The Heartland Institute could be described, with which Prof. Don J. Easterbrook, author of the above article, has previously been associated.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Don_Easterbrook
..

I can see nothing in those two links which discredits this work?
Can you point it out?

...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Don_Easterbrook

... Josh Willis, a scientist who tracks ocean changes in relation to climate at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, rebuts Easterbrook's global cooling theory, which Willis says is based on a poor understanding of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Willis points out that while "its true that the PDO has brought cooler than normal temperatures to a big chunk of the Pacific off and on for most of the last 10 years", the PDO is not "a big see-saw that rocks back and forth, cooling and then warming the whole planet every 20 years. Sometimes it flips back after just 5 years and sometimes it stays pretty much the same for 25 or so. Furthermore, the so-called "cold phase" of the PDO is not exclusively cold. It also involves warmer than normal waters in the western and northern parts of the Pacific. So the effect of the PDO on global temperatures is not nearly as clear as it is for its smaller and better known cousins, El Nino and La Nina. It's a pretty wild statement to claim that the PDO data shows conclusively that global cooling will occur for the next 10 years." [3]

...

You may not agree with it, but it certainly refutes Eastbrook's work.

Erm, no. I see one guys opinion, with no counter data. Isn't this chap linked to Al Gore's Nobel Peace prize?
Independent assessment? unlikely.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

...

Ah, nothing like blaming the whistle-blowers.
Now there's a right-wing thing to do.

Break-ins are not whistle blowing, ask the Watergate burglars.

Just think how much quicker that whole affair could have been dealt with had the burglars actually blown whistles. Nixon had them too well primed.

They didn't call him Tricky Dicky for nothing.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Erm, no. I see one guys opinion, with no counter data.

That's okay. You could just insist that any counter data couldn't prove anything, anyway.

 

[Scunnerlugzzz]

...

Erm, no. I see one guys opinion, with no counter data.

That's okay. You could just insist that any counter data couldn't prove anything, anyway.

Oddly enough I thought that was precisely your stand point.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

You're welcome to your opinion.

 

[Scunnerlugzzz]

You're welcome to your opinion.

and as long as that means you don't call me a Climate Change Denier, I guess I can settle for that.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

[...]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Don_Easterbrook

... Josh Willis, a scientist who tracks ocean changes in relation to climate at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, rebuts Easterbrook's global cooling theory, which Willis says is based on a poor understanding of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. [...]

You may not agree with it, but it certainly refutes Eastbrook's work.

Erm, no. I see one guys opinion, with no counter data. Isn't this chap linked to Al Gore's Nobel Peace prize?
Independent assessment? unlikely.

Linked to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize? Kind of, I suppose.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-108

NASA JPL Scientist Receives Presidential Early Career Award

Jet Propulsion Laboratory. July 13, 2009

PASADENA, Calif. - Josh Willis, an oceanographer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., has been honored by President Barack Obama with the 2009 Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers. The award is the highest honor bestowed by the U.S. government on young professionals in the early stages of their independent research careers.

...

A researcher in JPL's Ocean Circulation Group, Willis uses satellite data as well as data collected at sea to study the impact of global warming on the ocean. His studies of ocean warming and sea level rise have been widely used by colleagues around the world and were cited in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That report shared the 2007 Nobel Peace prize with Vice President Al Gore. Willis frequently lectures to the public and works with students to educate them about climate change issues and human impacts on global warming.

...

Willis contributed to a report which, 'shared the 2007 Nobel Peace prize with Vice President Al Gore.' In fact, he didn't exactly contribute to the report, the JPL news release only states that his work was, cited, in the report.

Is that the link to Al Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize to which you are referring?

 

[Peripart]

It's always nice to see a thread where one of the most sarcastic posters is a Moderator. I always feel that that helps the argument boil along nicely.

I've read quite a bit of stuff on the subject, and arguments on both sides of the debate interest me, but I'm not going to add anything further here when the very person who should be putting a stop to the back-biting and name-calling is indulging in the very same.

 

[stu neville]

Good point, well made.

I am imposing a blanket, no-exceptions, winding-in-of-necks policy to this thread, effective immediately. Don't care who started it, it's ending now.

There.

Tea, anyone? Do continue .

 

[Scunnerlugzzz]

[...]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Don_Easterbrook

... Josh Willis, a scientist who tracks ocean changes in relation to climate at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, rebuts Easterbrook's global cooling theory, which Willis says is based on a poor understanding of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. [...]

You may not agree with it, but it certainly refutes Eastbrook's work.

Erm, no. I see one guys opinion, with no counter data. Isn't this chap linked to Al Gore's Nobel Peace prize?
Independent assessment? unlikely.

Linked to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize? Kind of, I suppose.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-108

NASA JPL Scientist Receives Presidential Early Career Award

Jet Propulsion Laboratory. July 13, 2009

PASADENA, Calif. - Josh Willis, an oceanographer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., has been honored by President Barack Obama with the 2009 Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers. The award is the highest honor bestowed by the U.S. government on young professionals in the early stages of their independent research careers.

...

A researcher in JPL's Ocean Circulation Group, Willis uses satellite data as well as data collected at sea to study the impact of global warming on the ocean. His studies of ocean warming and sea level rise have been widely used by colleagues around the world and were cited in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That report shared the 2007 Nobel Peace prize with Vice President Al Gore. Willis frequently lectures to the public and works with students to educate them about climate change issues and human impacts on global warming.

...

Willis contributed to a report which, 'shared the 2007 Nobel Peace prize with Vice President Al Gore.' In fact, he didn't exactly contribute to the report, the JPL news release only states that his work was, cited, in the report.

Is that the link to Al Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize to which you are referring?

Actually I didn't bother Googling the name. I just commented on what my vague memory trawled up at the time. Its getting a bit daft when being pulled up for not having enough links and verification on a comments thread.
Guess you are a bit worried about this subject.
(look forward to carrying this debate on in your non-mod guise)

 

[ramonmercado]

Good point, well made.

I am imposing a blanket, no-exceptions, winding-in-of-necks policy to this thread, effective immediately. Don't care who started it, it's ending now.

There.

Tea, anyone? Do continue .

Yes! I'd love a cup of tea and some choc digestive biccies.

I'm just here to post a link to an article by some climate sciemtists.

An Open Letter To Congress From US ScientistsOn Climate Change And Recently Stolen Emails
http://www.countercurrents.org/ce061209.htm

As U.S. scientists with substantial expertise on climate change and its impacts on natural ecosystems, our built environment and human well-being, we want to assure policy makers and the public of the integrity of the underlying scientific research and the need for urgent action to reduce heat-trapping emissions. In the last few weeks, opponents of taking action on climate change have misrepresented both the content and the significance of stolen emails to obscure public understanding of climate science and the scientific process

 

[Scunnerlugzzz]

Good point, well made.

I am imposing a blanket, no-exceptions, winding-in-of-necks policy to this thread, effective immediately. Don't care who started it, it's ending now.

There.

Tea, anyone? Do continue .

Yes! I'd love a cup of tea and some choc digestive biccies.

I'm just here to post a link to an article by some climate sciemtists.

An Open Letter To Congress From US ScientistsOn Climate Change And Recently Stolen Emails
http://www.countercurrents.org/ce061209.htm

As U.S. scientists with substantial expertise on climate change and its impacts on natural ecosystems, our built environment and human well-being, we want to assure policy makers and the public of the integrity of the underlying scientific research and the need for urgent action to reduce heat-trapping emissions. In the last few weeks, opponents of taking action on climate change have misrepresented both the content and the significance of stolen emails to obscure public understanding of climate science and the scientific process

sciemtists? Brilliant, even if it was a typo. If not I applaude your scheming.

 

[ramonmercado]

Drat! I've been uncovered!To the escape pods!

 

[shruggy63]

For the sake of younger readers this is what happens when you become middle aged & entrenched in your opinions. It's not a path that you should follow but you well may.
PS. sorry about the glaciers.