Climate links
Easily the best presentation of the developing science of the role of CO2 in the atmosphere I have seen. If there had been more of this-open-minded, careful, engaging-and less of the sneering and shouting and premature certainty, those arguing the case for concern would be in a much better position.
Post-glacial sea-level rise. Recent sea level rise.
There has indeed been a lot of snow in the Washington DC area. Amusing headline on same. Meanwhile, the US is unusually drought free.
Looking at the temperature station with the second-longest continuous temperature record (back to 1770, 1775 continuous) in Europe. About which there has been some fuss.
Prof. Phil Jones says:
(1) There has been no warming since 1995
(2) He had trouble keeping track of data, hence his lack of response to data requests
(3) Whether the medieval warm period was warmer than now is still an open question. A Q&A with Prof. Jones. He further responds to critics here:
Because the raw data had been obtained from a Chinese contact of one of Jones's co-authors, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany in New York, and details of their location had subsequently been lost, there was no way of verifying or refuting Keenan's claim.
There has been way too much of “the dog ate my homework”.
Yet more problems with the IPCC report:
The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company.
Claims based on information in press releases and newsletters.
New examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished.
More claims which were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups.
Querying the IPCC conclusions on hurricanes. A central cause of these difficulties was letting the NGOs into the process: advocacy is their business, not science, and this unfolding disastrous farce of advocacy passing itself off as science is the result. And they were warned:
There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community - instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.
More.
If you want to try and keep track of all the errors/gates/scandals, a useful list is here.
About the issue of problems with the temperature records and whether there has been notable warming.
Not quite getting this science thing:
That is why they resisted Freedom of Information requests and bent the rules by refusing to share data: because they knew that any data shared would be picked apart and used to undermine public confidence in their work, as has indeed now happened.
Sir John Houghton apparently did not utter a quote attributed to him (Piers A responds): but he did say some vaguely similar things.
Explaining what drives the sceptics:
… eco-fascism is exactly what organisations like the EU, the US’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the current British government and the forthcoming Heath administration are trying to impose on their increasingly clued-up (and correspondingly sceptical) tax-paying, freedom-loving citizenry.
We love our world; we want our children and grandchildren to grow up with jobs and to be able to enjoy looking at landscapes which haven’t been destroyed by wind turbines; we understand that the richer an economy grows the more environmentally conscious it can afford to be. We believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Your side, Geoffrey, does not.
Putting it a little less absolutely (though it really is just the reverse of "you don't care about the planet!!!!!"), the way a whole lot of control agendas got tagged onto "catastrophe looming" case--typically by people from traditions whose previous claims to liberate workers, indigenous folk, manage resources etc etc so regularly turned into disaster--was unhelpful.
Engaging in entirely appropriate (and funny) mockery of the IPCC.
Post-glacial sea-level rise. Recent sea level rise.
There has indeed been a lot of snow in the Washington DC area. Amusing headline on same. Meanwhile, the US is unusually drought free.
Looking at the temperature station with the second-longest continuous temperature record (back to 1770, 1775 continuous) in Europe. About which there has been some fuss.
Prof. Phil Jones says:
(1) There has been no warming since 1995
(2) He had trouble keeping track of data, hence his lack of response to data requests
(3) Whether the medieval warm period was warmer than now is still an open question. A Q&A with Prof. Jones. He further responds to critics here:
Because the raw data had been obtained from a Chinese contact of one of Jones's co-authors, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany in New York, and details of their location had subsequently been lost, there was no way of verifying or refuting Keenan's claim.
There has been way too much of “the dog ate my homework”.
Yet more problems with the IPCC report:
The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company.
Claims based on information in press releases and newsletters.
New examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished.
More claims which were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups.
Querying the IPCC conclusions on hurricanes. A central cause of these difficulties was letting the NGOs into the process: advocacy is their business, not science, and this unfolding disastrous farce of advocacy passing itself off as science is the result. And they were warned:
There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community - instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.
More.
If you want to try and keep track of all the errors/gates/scandals, a useful list is here.
About the issue of problems with the temperature records and whether there has been notable warming.
Not quite getting this science thing:
That is why they resisted Freedom of Information requests and bent the rules by refusing to share data: because they knew that any data shared would be picked apart and used to undermine public confidence in their work, as has indeed now happened.
Sir John Houghton apparently did not utter a quote attributed to him (Piers A responds): but he did say some vaguely similar things.
Explaining what drives the sceptics:
… eco-fascism is exactly what organisations like the EU, the US’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the current British government and the forthcoming Heath administration are trying to impose on their increasingly clued-up (and correspondingly sceptical) tax-paying, freedom-loving citizenry.
We love our world; we want our children and grandchildren to grow up with jobs and to be able to enjoy looking at landscapes which haven’t been destroyed by wind turbines; we understand that the richer an economy grows the more environmentally conscious it can afford to be. We believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Your side, Geoffrey, does not.
Putting it a little less absolutely (though it really is just the reverse of "you don't care about the planet!!!!!"), the way a whole lot of control agendas got tagged onto "catastrophe looming" case--typically by people from traditions whose previous claims to liberate workers, indigenous folk, manage resources etc etc so regularly turned into disaster--was unhelpful.
Engaging in entirely appropriate (and funny) mockery of the IPCC.