http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11...e28_named_wtf/

"A list of attendees at a climate-change seminar the BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds trying to keep
secret has been unearthed on an internet archive. The listed names emerged after the publicly-funded
broadcaster fought off requests for the list under freedom of information (FOI) laws."

"Normally such a talking-shop would have no great significance. The 2006 seminar, however, subsequently
became very important indeed. The following year a thoughtful BBC Trust report on impartiality cited the
discussion there and said it had settled the argument - as far as the BBC was concerned - on climate change.

Filmmaker John Bridcut wrote:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [our emphasis] and has come
to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the
consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].

The BBC is under a statutory obligation to remain impartial, so this gave the "brainstorm" a historic significance:
the BBC has not previously abandoned impartiality in peacetime."

More detail at the reference given.

--
Terry Fields

On 15/01/13 17:11, Terry Fields wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11...e28_named_wtf/

"A list of attendees at a climate-change seminar the BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds trying to keep
secret has been unearthed on an internet archive. The listed names emerged after the publicly-funded
broadcaster fought off requests for the list under freedom of information (FOI) laws."

"Normally such a talking-shop would have no great significance. The 2006 seminar, however, subsequently
became very important indeed. The following year a thoughtful BBC Trust report on impartiality cited the
discussion there and said it had settled the argument - as far as the BBC was concerned - on climate change.

Filmmaker John Bridcut wrote:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [our emphasis] and has come
to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the
consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].

The BBC is under a statutory obligation to remain impartial, so this gave the "brainstorm" a historic significance:
the BBC has not previously abandoned impartiality in peacetime."

More detail at the reference given.

old news, and the 'scientists' in question were outed several months
ago* and turned out to be mostly lobbyists and members of
eco-organisations.

"It confirms the accuracy of Harrabin's description of the composition
of the invitees, with most coming from industry, think tanks and NGOs.
And as suspected, climate campaigners Greenpeace are present, while
actual scientific experts are thin on the ground: not one attendee deals
with attribution science, the physics of global warming. These are
scarcely "some of the best scientific experts", whose input could
justify a historic abandonment of the BBC's famous impartiality."

(from your link)

And if you want to read it, here it is

http://omnologos.com/full-list-of-pa...-january-2006/


* by the simple expedient of looking for the lists of invitees that was
published online somewhere outside the BBC.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Well, this is a hard one to call, does the bbc give equal time to those who
say the earth is flat? Its all a question of where the line is drawn. There
is a similar issue over evolution and intelligent design of course.
The problem with climate change is that we have records from geological
time that the earth has survived being hotter and colder in the past but we
were not around with enough tech to tell tales.

The best that can be said is that we are most certainly not helping. However
the earth is still coming out of the last ice age and nobody really knows
what the end result will be.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11...e28_named_wtf/

"A list of attendees at a climate-change seminar the BBC has spent tens of
thousands of pounds trying to keep
secret has been unearthed on an internet archive. The listed names emerged
after the publicly-funded
broadcaster fought off requests for the list under freedom of information
(FOI) laws."

"Normally such a talking-shop would have no great significance. The 2006
seminar, however, subsequently
became very important indeed. The following year a thoughtful BBC Trust
report on impartiality cited the
discussion there and said it had settled the argument - as far as the BBC
was concerned - on climate change.

Filmmaker John Bridcut wrote:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific
experts [our emphasis] and has come
to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space
being given to the opponents of the
consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].

The BBC is under a statutory obligation to remain impartial, so this gave
the "brainstorm" a historic significance:
the BBC has not previously abandoned impartiality in peacetime."

More detail at the reference given.

--
Terry Fields

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 04:07:53 -0000, Brian Gaff wrote:

Well, this is a hard one to call, does the bbc give equal time to those who
say the earth is flat? Its all a question of where the line is drawn.

SNIP

This crossed my mind, Brian. If a point of view is is that of a small(ish)
minority or is known to be wrong (astrology, flat earth, religion) why give
space to such.
In the case of climate change, there is a lot of evidence but, AFAIK, no
actual hard proof yet. We know only that anthropogenic warming is at least
adding to what might be a natural phenomenon.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On 16/01/13 09:18, PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 04:07:53 -0000, Brian Gaff wrote:

Well, this is a hard one to call, does the bbc give equal time to those who
say the earth is flat? Its all a question of where the line is drawn.

SNIP

This crossed my mind, Brian. If a point of view is is that of a small(ish)
minority or is known to be wrong (astrology, flat earth, religion) why give
space to such.
In the case of climate change, there is a lot of evidence but, AFAIK, no
actual hard proof yet. We know only that anthropogenic warming is at least
adding to what might be a natural phenomenon.

It has been said that the deserts of Mesopotamia and the middle east are
the result of 10,000 years of organic farming.

Should the BBC decide unilaterally that organic farming methods are
destroying the planet?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

.... correctly this time (I believe and hope). See below ...

This post is in response to the following typical denialist post from
Terry Fields, who claims to have senior scientific training. Whatever
the truth about that, personally I have never seen the slightest
evidence of it in his posts, he certainly does not have the
open-minded, questioning approach required. He'd better be ready to
bleed, because he's about to have a haemorrhage ...

On 15 Jan 2013 17:11:31 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

h t t p : / / w w w . t h e r e g i s t e r . c o . u k /
2 0 1 2 / 1 1 / 1 3 / c l i m a t e 2 8 _ n a m e d _ w t f /

I mung the URL, because I don't want to give search engines another
reason to rank this outrageously lazy and shoddy piece of 'journoism'
any higher than it already is. Also I'm snipping TF's quotes from it,
which are included below anyway, and choosing my own more extensive
ones.

SECRET 28 'scientific experts' who Greened the BBC - Revealed!
Beeb spent a mint to suppress list on Wayback Machine (includes
Greenpeacers)

Note the inflammatory denialist headline. Particularly inappropriate
given what follows ...

The seminar whose attendees the Beeb sought to keep secret was birthed
by three organisation. In 2004, the International Broadcasting Trust -
a lobby group funded by a number of charities, including many involved
in campaigning on climate change - devised the first in a series of
seminars on development issues, where the lobbyists could address
broadcasters.

One event on 26 January 2006 was a "brainstorm", in the IBT's own
words, "focusing on climate change and its impact on development". The
BBC sent 28 senior staff, and 28 outsiders were invited. The event was
also organised by CMEP, its second parent - a now dormant or defunct
outfit operated by BBC reporter Roger Harrabin and climate activist Dr
Joe Smith, and once funded by the Tyndall Centre at the University of
East Anglia (UEA) and pressure groups.

Harrabin later explained that the BBC's head of news in the 1990s,
Tony Hall, had invited him "to devise meetings with politicians,
business people, think tanks, academics from many universities and
specialisms (science, technology, economic and social sciences, and
history), and policy experts and field workers from NGOs –
particularly from the developing world".

The third parent of the seminar was the BBC.

Normally such a talking-shop would have no great significance. The
2006 seminar, however, subsequently became very important indeed. The
following year a thoughtful BBC Trust report on impartiality
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/p...artiality.html
cited the discussion there and said it had settled the argument - as far as
the BBC was concerned - on climate change.

Filmmaker John Bridcut wrote:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best
scientific experts [our emphasis] and has come to the view that the
weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the
opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].

Note that Bridcut gives no details or time and date of said seminar.
Note too that this was VERY selective quote. The full quote actually
goes:

"Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular.
There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is
definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made.
But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and
articulate opponents, even if a small minority.

Jana Bennett, Director of Television, argued at the seminar that ‘as
journalists, we have the duty to understand where the weight of the
evidence has got to. And that is an incredibly important thing in
terms of public understanding – equipping citizens, informing the
public as to what’s going to happen or not happen possibly over the
next couple of hundred years.’

Roger Mosey, Director of Sport, said that in his former job as head of
TV News, he had been lobbied by scientists ‘about what they thought
was a disproportionate number of people denying climate change getting
on our airwaves and being part of a balanced discussion – because they
believe, absolutely sincerely, that climate change is now scientific
fact.'

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific
experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no
longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the
consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be
heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down
this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or
‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC.
Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as
minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must
give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more
offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes
of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet
is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution is to increase public
awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and
accurate programming. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only
sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding
both causation and solution. It remains important that
programme-makers relish the full range of debate that such a central
and absorbing subject offers, scientifically, politically and
ethically, and avoid being misrepresented as standard-bearers. The
wagon wheel remains a model shape. But the trundle of the bandwagon is
not a model sound."

I was struck by the selective quoting, the totally different slant of
the original report, and my suspicions were aroused. They were
aroused still further noting in the above that a second seminar was
mentioned, which, on reading the report in its entirety, turned out to
be about impartiality, and had preceded the writing of the report.
This gave me the idea that the much maligned seminar of 26 January
2006 was perhaps not even the same one that the BBC had actually used
as a basis for its future reporting of Climate Change.

The BBC is under a statutory obligation to remain impartial, so this
gave the "brainstorm" a historic significance: the BBC has not
previously abandoned impartiality in peacetime.

If you read the document on impartiality linked above, the BBC has not
abandoned impartiality. I would strongly recommend everyone here who
has criticised the BBC, particularly for lack of impartiality, that
they SHOULD READ IT IN ITS ENTIRETY, as a duty to themselves, but
perhaps more importantly to the readers of their posts.

A blogger, Tony Newbery, was struck by the difference between
contemporary evidence that the seminar was educational and composed
largely of activists - as confirmed by Harrabin - and the trust's
insistence that it was a sober scientific presentation that could
justify a historic policy change. (The BBC Trust has done nothing to
disown or qualify Bridcut's description of the event.)

[...]

Newbery filed his FOI request for the seminar's attendees to the BBC

[...]

However science writer Maurizio Morabito has unearthed a list - once
hosted on the IBT's website and now stored in the Wayback Machine's
cache of the internet.

It confirms the accuracy of Harrabin's description of the composition
of the invitees, with most coming from industry, think tanks and NGOs.
And as suspected, climate campaigners Greenpeace are present, while
actual scientific experts are thin on the ground: not one attendee
deals with attribution science, the physics of global warming. These
are scarcely "some of the best scientific experts", whose input could
justify a historic abandonment of the BBC's famous impartiality.

Intriguingly, Tony Newbery had been supplied with a later version of
this document, he tells us - but with the attendee list stripped out.

I examined the entire record of Wayback Machine for the IBT site from
the beginning of 2006 to the present day, every 'dump' for 2006, 2007,
and 2008, one at random for every year since.

The first point is that the list of attendees was nowhere to be seen,
so unless somehow, despite such a thorough search, I managed to miss
it, the list given in the article and in other blogs did not come from
there, raising the question as to how it was obtained, and whether
this procurement was legal. In a section I've cut for brevity the
blog slams the BBC for spending taxpayers' money in defending FOI
requests for data that was freely available. My investigations
suggest that it wasn't. However, that is a side issue, which is why
I've cut it.

Rather more usefully, I did find a description of the seminar of 26
January 2006 which first appeared in a document dated 23/06/2008
entitled "REAL WORLD BRAINSTORMS" from a dump taken on 24/07/2008, and
lasted through several later dumps. This is the entire quote covering
that seminar:

http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http:...ents/dialogue/
Real%20World%20Brainstorm%20update%2030Jul08.pdf?P HPSESSID=e30a3ed48b567c7ba75820b6b1951844

"2006
A one day event was held in London on January 26 2006, focusing on
climate change and its impact on development. The brainstorm brought
together 28 BBC executives and independent producers, this time
including several from BBC News, and 28 policy experts. It was chaired
by Fergal Keane and looked ahead to the next 10 years, to explore the
challenges facing television in covering this issue. Several delegates
attended from developing countries, including Ethiopia, China and
Bangladesh."

As you can see, apart from the fact that it happens also to be about
Climate Change, it's description doesn't fit anything otherwise
claimed by either the BBC quote or the climate denialists. Thoroughly
suspicious now, I began to ask myself how to discover to which seminar
the BBC quote actually referred, was it the one claimed, which now
seemed highly unlikely, or to a totally different one?

I reasoned that the BBC are not usually slow to report on their own
activities, so they probably reported on this allegedly 'secret'
seminar at the time, and so it proved. I merely searched for ...

site:www.bbc.co.uk bbc coverage of climate change 2006

.... and on the second page of hits, I found these from July 2006:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5150816.stm

"Climate change 'real and severe'

An expert panel convened by BBC News has concluded that climate change
is "real and dangerous".

Temperatures are likely to rise by 3C to 5C by the end of the century,
with impacts probably "severe" but perhaps not "catastrophic", the
panel said.

....

For perspectives on these issues, BBC environment affairs analyst
Roger Harrabin brought together a panel of seven eminent academics
with expertise including climate modelling, the Antarctic, and social
aspects of environment policy."

You can still listen to the resulting R4 programme ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/re...20060706.shtml

.... and read the conclusions of the expert panel ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5152590.stm

The panel contained:
* (Chairman) Prof Brian Hoskins, Royal Society Research Professor,
Reading University
* Prof Chris Rapley, Director, British Antarctic Survey
* Lord Oxburgh, University Scientist, former chairman of Shell
* Dr Vicky Pope, Head of the Climate Prediction Programme, Hadley
Centre
* Prof Hans von Storch, Director, Institute for Coastal Research,
Geesthacht, Germany
* Prof Susan Owens, Professor of Environment and Policy, Cambridge
University
* Prof Andrew Watson, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University
of East Anglia

.... and also present as agent provocateur at the discussion, which was
largely triggered by his then recent and controversial book ...

Professor James Lovelock, author of 'The Revenge of Gaia.'

Further extensive searches revealed no mention of any other seminars
in the requisite period between January and September 2006 that fitted
the description in the BBC Impartiality report. The above seminar, a
different one to that claimed by denialist bloggers, is the relevant
one.

So there you have it. It seems that some denialist found the earlier
seminar first, assumed without making any further checks that it must
be the one, and the blogging excrement in excrement out multiplication
factory took over from there.

ASSUMED - please be sure that you note that word, because in all my
searches I haven't seen a single shred of EVIDENCE that the January
seminar they picked on was actually the one in question, and this July
one is also in the right timeframe and fits the BBC's own description
much better. So why didn't they find it, when it was there, in the
clear, in the BBC's own archives for all to find and see and hear? Why
did it take an independent person to find it? Because, as the BBC's
own thoughtful and thought-provoking report on its own impartiality,
linked above, makes clear, impartiality needs certain qualities
(percentages figures are those in a poll rating the important of each
quality):

Stay open-minded, not making assumptions about people or events
86%

Stay neutral, not giving own view, however difficult that is
80%

Let us hear different people giving their own stories in their own
words
80%

Give us a considered analysis of events taking place
77%

Stand back and ask critical and rigorous questions of others
71%

Maintain a certain distance – not getting too close to the issue
reported on
65%

By contrast, in blogging land, anything goes - there is no need to
be impartial, to check basic facts, or to apologise for error.
Laziness, a lack of determination to get to the real truth, credulous
paranoia, and anti-institutional bigotry are all too commonly the
norm.

****'s always ugly, isn't it?

Thank heavens for the impartiality of the Beeb.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive wrote:

... correctly this time (I believe and hope). See below ...

This post is in response to the following typical denialist post from
Terry Fields, who claims to have senior scientific training. Whatever
the truth about that, personally I have never seen the slightest
evidence of it in his posts, he certainly does not have the
open-minded, questioning approach required. He'd better be ready to
bleed, because he's about to have a haemorrhage ...

On 15 Jan 2013 17:11:31 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

I am reasonably certain I wrote none of it.

h t t p : / / w w w . t h e r e g i s t e r . c o . u k /
2 0 1 2 / 1 1 / 1 3 / c l i m a t e 2 8 _ n a m e d _ w t f /

I mung the URL, because I don't want to give search engines another
reason to rank this outrageously lazy and shoddy piece of 'journoism'
any higher than it already is. Also I'm snipping TF's quotes from it,
which are included below anyway, and choosing my own more extensive
ones.

Nothing like an open mind, is there?

This is from the man who, having chosen the data, then uses it to
produce a calculation that 'proves' his argument is right (uranium
from seawater) while ignoring advances in technology, now 7 times
more effective, that anyway undermines his position.

That...isn't scientific. It's more like a religion.

Rest snipped.

Thank heavens for the impartiality of the Beeb.

Did they, or did they not, line up six expensive lawyers and spend
£shedloads getting the FOI request refused?
--
Terry Fields

On 16 Sep 2013 22:25:53 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

... correctly this time (I believe and hope). See below ...

This post is in response to the following typical denialist post from
Terry Fields, who claims to have senior scientific training. Whatever
the truth about that, personally I have never seen the slightest
evidence of it in his posts, he certainly does not have the
open-minded, questioning approach required. He'd better be ready to
bleed, because he's about to have a haemorrhage ...

On 15 Jan 2013 17:11:31 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

I am reasonably certain I wrote none of it.

Did you, or did you not, link to this page without any question as to
the story's authenticity and correctness? I and doubtless others will
note that you cannot have made any worthwhile checks as to its
accuracy at all.

h t t p : / / w w w . t h e r e g i s t e r . c o . u k /
2 0 1 2 / 1 1 / 1 3 / c l i m a t e 2 8 _ n a m e d _ w t f /

I mung the URL, because I don't want to give search engines another
reason to rank this outrageously lazy and shoddy piece of 'journoism'
any higher than it already is. Also I'm snipping TF's quotes from it,
which are included below anyway, and choosing my own more extensive
ones.

Nothing like an open mind, is there?

If you are claiming that your mind is more open than mine, why didn't
you find the fundamental and reasonably obvious errors in the article
for yourself?

This is from the man who, having chosen the data, then uses it to
produce a calculation that 'proves' his argument is right (uranium
from seawater) while ignoring advances in technology, now 7 times
more effective, that anyway undermines his position.

That...isn't scientific. It's more like a religion.

Answered more appropriately elsewhere.

Rest snipped.

I think we can all understand why.

Thank heavens for the impartiality of the Beeb.

Did they, or did they not, line up six expensive lawyers and spend
£shedloads getting the FOI request refused?

Of course they did. If you received an FOI request requesting data
from someone whom you suspect might be about to use it to criticise
you in an impartial fashion, would you willingly give that person the
data? It's probably simpler and cheaper to fight the FOI than to sue
for libel afterwards. You also have to think about the implications
for others who attended the meeting, some of whom were from countries
with less than open and democratic government. What will be the
effect for these people if their government later reads a totally
misrepresentative account of the meeting, with their name listed as an
attendee?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive wrote:

On 16 Sep 2013 22:25:53 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

... correctly this time (I believe and hope). See below ...

This post is in response to the following typical denialist post from
Terry Fields, who claims to have senior scientific training. Whatever
the truth about that, personally I have never seen the slightest
evidence of it in his posts, he certainly does not have the
open-minded, questioning approach required. He'd better be ready to
bleed, because he's about to have a haemorrhage ...

On 15 Jan 2013 17:11:31 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

I am reasonably certain I wrote none of it.

Did you, or did you not, link to this page without any question as to
the story's authenticity and correctness? I and doubtless others will
note that you cannot have made any worthwhile checks as to its
accuracy at all.

Perhaps I should have paid for a team of expensive lawyers to take on
the BBC's expensive lawyers in a court battle?

Get real.

h t t p : / / w w w . t h e r e g i s t e r . c o . u k /
2 0 1 2 / 1 1 / 1 3 / c l i m a t e 2 8 _ n a m e d _ w t f /

I mung the URL, because I don't want to give search engines another
reason to rank this outrageously lazy and shoddy piece of 'journoism'
any higher than it already is. Also I'm snipping TF's quotes from it,
which are included below anyway, and choosing my own more extensive
ones.

Nothing like an open mind, is there?

If you are claiming that your mind is more open than mine, why didn't
you find the fundamental and reasonably obvious errors in the article
for yourself?

Partky because I am spending too much time finding the fundamental and
reasonably obvious errors in your postings.

This is from the man who, having chosen the data, then uses it to
produce a calculation that 'proves' his argument is right (uranium
from seawater) while ignoring advances in technology, now 7 times
more effective, that anyway undermines his position.

That...isn't scientific. It's more like a religion.

Answered more appropriately elsewhere.

Rest snipped.

I think we can all understand why.

Thank heavens for the impartiality of the Beeb.

Did they, or did they not, line up six expensive lawyers and spend
£shedloads getting the FOI request refused?

Of course they did. If you received an FOI request requesting data
from someone whom you suspect might be about to use it to criticise
you in an impartial fashion, would you willingly give that person the
data? It's probably simpler and cheaper to fight the FOI than to sue
for libel afterwards. You also have to think about the implications
for others who attended the meeting, some of whom were from countries
with less than open and democratic government. What will be the
effect for these people if their government later reads a totally
misrepresentative account of the meeting, with their name listed as an
attendee?

So, you don't know how the FOI system works. Why am I not surprised?

What a stupid argument.

--
Terry Fields

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 4:47:14 AM UTC+12, Java Jive quoted:


Roger Mosey, Director of Sport, said that in his former job as head of

TV News, he had been lobbied by scientists ‘about what they thought

was a disproportionate number of people denying climate change getting

on our airwaves and being part of a balanced discussion – because they

believe, absolutely sincerely, that climate change is now scientific

fact.'

Well there's the problem right there. Almost nobody is "denying climate change".
I don't know anyone who denies climate change. Let's ignore anybody who does.

I am aware of tens of thousands of people with science degrees who say that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

On 17 Sep 2013 16:05:14 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

Did you, or did you not, link to this page without any question as to
the story's authenticity and correctness? I and doubtless others will
note that you cannot have made any worthwhile checks as to its
accuracy at all.

Perhaps I should have paid for a team of expensive lawyers to take on
the BBC's expensive lawyers in a court battle?

If I could discover the truth without any expense other than that of
time, so could you. The significant and important point is that you
didn't bother. Despite your claims of academic seniority, you failed
to apply any critical faculty. You were garbage in garbage out, just
like the original blog.

If you are claiming that your mind is more open than mine, why didn't
you find the fundamental and reasonably obvious errors in the article
for yourself?

Partky because I am spending too much time finding the fundamental and
reasonably obvious errors in your postings.

I would be delighted to think I was taking up so much of your time, it
would mean that I was having some effect in reducing the flow of
unattributed denialist rubbish from you. Unfortunately however, I
know that claim to be utter ********, because I can prove it. You
posted the original link on 15/01/2013, and it so happens that I
didn't make a single post between the 14th and 17th.

And if my errors are so fundamental and reasonably obvious, how come
you're taking so much time to find them? Are you admitting to be
brain-challenged or something?

So, you don't know how the FOI system works. Why am I not surprised?

I do, having made some FOI requests from Ofcom myself.

What a stupid argument.

Which means that you can't find anything more substantial to say
against it.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Link?

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:54:48 -0700 (PDT), Matty F
wrote:

I am aware of tens of thousands of people with science degrees
who say that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses
is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic
heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's
climate."
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 10:54:15 AM UTC+12, Java Jive wrote:
Link?

Surely you have heard of the petition project?
http://www.petitionproject.org/

There are also lists of sceptic scientists elsewhere.


On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:54:48 -0700 (PDT), Matty F

wrote:



I am aware of tens of thousands of people with science degrees

who say that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human

release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses

is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic

heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's

climate."

On 17/09/2013 23:54, Java Jive wrote:
Link?

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:54:48 -0700 (PDT), Matty F
wrote:

I am aware of tens of thousands of people with science degrees
who say that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses
is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic
heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's
climate."


Me for one.
Degree in physics from IC.

dennis@home wrote:

I am aware of tens of thousands of people with science degrees
who say that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses
is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic
heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's
climate."

Which statement do you disagree with?
That human release ... will cause heating of the Earth ...?
Or that this heating will be catastrophic?

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 23:54:15 UTC+1, Java Jive wrote:

Link?

Not the BBC News:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html

On 18/09/13 13:45, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 23:54:15 UTC+1, Java Jive wrote:
Link?
Not the BBC News:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html
Give it another decade of cooling and they will have that down to a
'still catastrophic' tenth..


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:04:04 -0700 (PDT), Matty F
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 10:54:15 AM UTC+12, Java Jive wrote:
Link?

Surely you have heard of the petition project?
http://www.petitionproject.org/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

A front organisation purporting to be scientific, but ...

The 'scientists' give their disciplines as follows:
* Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences: 3,697
* Computer and mathematical sciences: 903
* Physics and aerospace sciences: 5,691
* Chemistry: 4,796
* Biology and agricultu 2,924
* Medicine: 3,069
* Engineering and general science: 9,992

So the appropriate science genre comes a fairly late 4th with only 12%
of the signatories. Worse still ...

"George Woodwell and John Holdren, two members of the National Academy
of Sciences, responded to Jacoby in the International Herald Tribune,
describing the petition as a "farce" in part because "the signatories
are listed without titles or affiliations that would permit an
assessment of their credentials."[19] Myanna Lahsen said, "Assuming
that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately,
credentialed climate experts on the list are very few." The problem is
made worse, Lahsen notes, because critics "added bogus names to
illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved".[20]
Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the
television show M*A*S*H,[21] the movie Star Wars,[20] Spice Girls
group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d.
1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".[22] When questioned about
the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the
Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and
degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting
thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake".[21] A
cursory examination by Todd Shelly of the Hawaii Reporter revealed
duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even
corporate names. "These examples underscore a major weakness of the
list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names
are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional
affiliation) is provided."[23] According to the Petition Project
website, the issue of duplication has been resolved.[24] Kevin Grandia
offered similar criticism, saying although the Petition Project
website provides a breakdown of "areas of expertise", it fails to
assort the 0.5% of signatories who claim to have a background in
Climatology and Atmospheric Science by name, making independent
verification difficult. "This makes an already questionable list seem
completely insignificant".

In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400
signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they
still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate
researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based
on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition
today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and
five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the
petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers –
a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the
climatological community"

To continue, the site has this paragraph on a page titled and reached
by clicking a button labelled:

"Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research"

"The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form
of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate
change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by
approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is
ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the
published review of which they are putative authors. They are
permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither
conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text
conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support
for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy."

So not so scientific after all then. Moving on to the 'report' ...

The PDF is dated 2007, so it's already 6 years out of date, and was
published in "The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons."

WTF do American physicians and surgeons know about climate science?
One can guess that it's nothing, but it's still very revealing to read
this:

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM

"it was mailed from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in
Cave Junction, Oregon. Now it so happens I know where Cave Junction
is. It's a wide spot in the road, so called because there's a turnoff
for Oregon Caves National Monument. Cave Junction is not a major
population center, much less the site of a university or major
research labs.

....

So why publish a paper on climate change in a medical journal? And
just what is the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons? A look
at the contents from the last few issues is revealing:

* The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on
Abortion and Other Risk Factors
* Government Price Fixing in Medicine: the Demanding Entitled
Patient
* Is Physician Income Too High, or Too Low? [take a wild guess]
* Editorial: Conflicts of Interest and Quality Care
* Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk: A Critical Analysis of
the Report of the Harvard Nurses Study II
* Common Sense, 231 Years Later
* American Physicians and Meiji-Era Samurais: Is History Repeating
Itself?
* The Coase Theorem: the Greatest Economic Insight of the 20
Century
* Has The Time for Nonparticipation Come?
* The Optometric-Ophthalmic Kickback Scheme: the Demise of
American Eye Medicine
* Book Reviews:
o The Cu How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care
o Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder [to be fair, the review is
critical of the state of conservative scholarship]
o The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science [Generally
favorable review]
o Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine's Greatest
Lifesaver
o The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and
Economic Factors
o The Business of Health: the Role of Competition, Markets,
and Regulation
o Envy: a Theory of Social Behavior
o Pain in America—and How Our Government Makes It Worse!
o America Alone: the End of the World as We Know It
o The Professors–The 101 Most Dangerous Academics In America
o Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years
o The Trouble With Medical Journals
o Minutemen – The Battle To Secure America’s Border
o Overdose: How Excessive Government Regulation Stifles
Pharmaceutical Innovation
o The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest
Plague in History
o The Real Lincoln - A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His
Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
o One Nation Under Therapy - How the Helping Culture Is
Eroding Self-Reliance
o Life at the Bottom - The Worldview That Makes the
Underclass

A scan of the journal's contents shows very little real science. It
may well be that the two papers on climate change are the most
scientific papers the journal has ever published. There are a lot of
articles critical of medical peer review and government regulation.
And there are a host of tangential articles and book reviews favorable
to far right and libertarian ideology. I could see a medical journal
publishing a review of an extreme book like The Bell Curve that was
widely publicized and had a bearing on medicine, but what serious
medical journal would ever have a reason to review books on
privatization of roads, the Minutemen, the 101 most dangerous
academics (I was excluded both from this and People's list of sexiest
men. O the injustice!), or a hostile revisionist work on Lincoln?"

And there's plenty more there, including a full scientific critique of
the anti-AGW claims of the Oregon Petition 'report'.

To continue, one of the editors of the Oregon Petition 'report' is
Willie Soon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

"Soon and Baliunas controversy

The Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication of a paper
written by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate
Research,[1] which prompted concerns about the peer review process of
the paper and resulted in the resignation of several other editors and
the eventual repudiation of the paper by the publisher.

....

Both were astrophysicists at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics: Soon had for a long time said that climate change was
primarily due to solar variation, while Baliunas had previously been
noted for disputing that man-made chemicals (halocarbon refrigerants
such as CFCs) were causing ozone depletion

....

Questions have also been raised about funding for the paper. Soon and
Baliunas "was in part underwritten by $53,000 from the American
Petroleum Institute, the voice of the oil industry".

And so on. Astrophysics? Why would the American Petroleum Institute
fund an astrophysicist in the course of his/her normal astrophysical
research? I think we can work out what's in it for the API.

Moving on to the contents of the PDF itself, the critique already
linked above is sufficiently detailed that I needn't do much further
work myself, merely pull one claim to pieces as an example.

So I will briefly note in passing that the first paragraph of the
summary reveals its overt political purpose. Still, at least it is
overt rather than covert.

The first piece of evidence considered is covered in paragraph 3 and
figure 1, reference 3. The original data and the analysis are he
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...r/keigwin1996/
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....n_sargasso.pdf

The research document is dated 2007, entitled "The Little Ice Age and
Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea" and describes research by
Lloyd D. Keigwin, Science, New Series, Vol. 274, No. 5292. (Nov. 29,
1996), pp. 1504-1508, stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=003... E2.0.CO%3B2-9

We shall see that the original research appears to be entirely valid,
but the anti-AGW slant of its results claimed by the Oregan Petition
paper is not.

From the text of the PDF summary:

p 1506 (printed) 4 (pdf):

"In the last half of the record there was a 1.5°C oscillation from a
minimum SST 1500 to 1700 years ago to a maximum 900 to 1000 years ago,
to a minimum 300 to 400 years ago. Since the Little Ice Age, SSTs in
the northern Sargasso Sea increased by ~1°C. Actual SST changes may
have been even greater than indicated in Fig. 4B, in that the sediment
may have been mixed differentially by burrowing (~5 cm) as
sedimentation rates changed, and because stacking the delta18O data
may have attenuated the signal. From the raw delta18O data of BC-004D
(Fig. 4A), calculated SST 350 years ago was 21.5°C, about 1.5° C
colder than the modern annual average."

In subsequent paragraphs, given the variability found, the paper goes
on with some justification to caution about drawing exaggerated
conclusions supporting AGW from absolute temperature ranges and actual
numerical values alone.

However, we know from such data as ice cores that surface temperatures
have always varied, so those on their own tell us little. To work out
whether human are actually doing anything to the climate we need to
look at RATES of change, here rates of temperature change, and this
paper has nothing to say overtly on this. However putting the above
descriptions into rates of change, we find that the results are
entirely consistent with my ball-park figures from the Vostok data:

1.5 / (1600 - 950) = 0.0023 deg C / yr
(= occurs in 47% of Vostok samples)
1.5 / 350 = 0.0043 deg C / yr
(= occurs in 28% of Vostok samples)

Yet the rates of change of recent years as calculated from BEST's
results only occur in 18% (1.5 deg C over last 259 years) and 3% (0.9
deg C over last 50 or 60 years - different text sources are slightly
ambiguous, so latter was chosen for calculation purposes, if former
had been chosen, would have been 2%).

So this research paper appears to be entirely consistent with other
strands of research and doesn't say anything against AGW in the manner
claimed in the Oregon Petition text.

Critique of the rest is left as an exercise for the reader.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

See other thread ...

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 05:45:22 -0700 (PDT), Weatherlawyer
wrote:

Not the BBC News:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ses-wrong.html
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

IF there is another decade of cooling, particularly if there's another
two, ideas will certainly have to be revised drastically.

But I wouldn't count chickens if I were you.

If you look at the last flat point, it lasted about 20 years from
1950-ish to 1970-ish, but was then followed by the fastest known rate
of warming yet. BEST's most recent figures of 0.9 dec C over 50 or 60
years (stated ambiguously), is actually rather generous by including
both the flat point and the subsequent rise. If you just measure the
rise alone it's equivalent to 0.91 degrees over 34.5 years, or 0.026
deg / yr, which is only matched by 1% of the Vostok data.

We'll have to see what happens, but I think it's entirely possible,
perhaps even likely, that history will repeat itself, and the current
flatline will break within a few years, and the temperature suddenly
start to increase rapidly again.

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:48:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Give it another decade of cooling and they will have that down to a
'still catastrophic' tenth..
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In message , Java Jive
writes
On 16 Sep 2013 22:25:53 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

... correctly this time (I believe and hope). See below ...

This post is in response to the following typical denialist post from
Terry Fields, who claims to have senior scientific training. Whatever
the truth about that, personally I have never seen the slightest
evidence of it in his posts, he certainly does not have the
open-minded, questioning approach required. He'd better be ready to
bleed, because he's about to have a haemorrhage ...

On 15 Jan 2013 17:11:31 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

I am reasonably certain I wrote none of it.

Did you, or did you not, link to this page without any question as to
the story's authenticity and correctness? I and doubtless others will
note that you cannot have made any worthwhile checks as to its
accuracy at all.

h t t p : / / w w w . t h e r e g i s t e r . c o . u k /
2 0 1 2 / 1 1 / 1 3 / c l i m a t e 2 8 _ n a m e d _ w t f /

I mung the URL, because I don't want to give search engines another
reason to rank this outrageously lazy and shoddy piece of 'journoism'
any higher than it already is. Also I'm snipping TF's quotes from it,
which are included below anyway, and choosing my own more extensive
ones.

Nothing like an open mind, is there?

If you are claiming that your mind is more open than mine, why didn't
you find the fundamental and reasonably obvious errors in the article
for yourself?

This is from the man who, having chosen the data, then uses it to
produce a calculation that 'proves' his argument is right (uranium
from seawater) while ignoring advances in technology, now 7 times
more effective, that anyway undermines his position.

That...isn't scientific. It's more like a religion.

Answered more appropriately elsewhere.

Rest snipped.

I think we can all understand why.

Thank heavens for the impartiality of the Beeb.

Did they, or did they not, line up six expensive lawyers and spend
£shedloads getting the FOI request refused?

Of course they did. If you received an FOI request requesting data
from someone whom you suspect might be about to use it to criticise
you in an impartial fashion, would you willingly give that person the
data? It's probably simpler and cheaper to fight the FOI than to sue
for libel afterwards. You also have to think about the implications
for others who attended the meeting, some of whom were from countries
with less than open and democratic government. What will be the
effect for these people if their government later reads a totally
misrepresentative account of the meeting, with their name listed as an
attendee?
I don't think I've ever seen a more perverse argument for suppressing
information.
--
bert

I would agree it's not an ideal situation. However, you have to
remember that it takes two to tango, and, as my OP has comprehensively
shown, blog land is not going to win any prizes on Strictly ...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:20:39 +0100, bert ] wrote:

In message , Java Jive
writes

Of course they did. If you received an FOI request requesting data
from someone whom you suspect might be about to use it to criticise
you in an impartial fashion, would you willingly give that person the
data? It's probably simpler and cheaper to fight the FOI than to sue
for libel afterwards. You also have to think about the implications
for others who attended the meeting, some of whom were from countries
with less than open and democratic government. What will be the
effect for these people if their government later reads a totally
misrepresentative account of the meeting, with their name listed as an
attendee?

I don't think I've ever seen a more perverse argument for suppressing
information.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

I began reading this without knowing whose side you were on or rather what point you were making. Then I

On 19/09/13 04:47, Weatherlawyer wrote:
I began reading this without knowing whose side you were on or rather what point you were making. Then I
Exactly.

Story of my life, that is..

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:11:16 AM UTC+12, Java Jive wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:04:04 -0700 (PDT), Matty F

wrote:



On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 10:54:15 AM UTC+12, Java Jive wrote:

Link?



Surely you have heard of the petition project?

http://www.petitionproject.org/





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition



A front organisation purporting to be scientific, but ...



The 'scientists' give their disciplines as follows:

* Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences: 3,697

* Computer and mathematical sciences: 903

* Physics and aerospace sciences: 5,691

* Chemistry: 4,796

* Biology and agricultu 2,924

* Medicine: 3,069

* Engineering and general science: 9,992



So the appropriate science genre comes a fairly late 4th with only 12%

of the signatories. Worse still ...

You may be able to discredit a few names (probably put there by warmists such as yourself) but there are still tens of thousands of scientists that disagree with you.

You might say that environmental and Earth sciences are the most appropriate sciences. I disagree. Environmental and Earth scientists' jobs are dependent on a continuation of the scary misinformation in the media that the world will end soon unless huge amounts of money are given to them for research. Most of them are not even qualified in the areas needed for historical climate research - these areas are physics, geology and statistics. I doubt if any of your "climate scientists" have qualifications in those three sciences. In particular, Michael "hockey stick" Mann and others don't seem to know much about statistics.

I'll agree that medicine is not particularly relevant to climate, however at least they should know how to read a thermometer properly and write the readings down without fudging them or changing them many years later.
Engineers and physicists and chemists work in the real world on real problems, and their jobs are on the line if they make mistakes.

But climate scientists can make all the mistakes they like. Their predictions are never right. If "the science is settled" on climate, why does the world need so many climate scientists? The answer of course is that we don't need more than a few, to keep accurate records. And they can't even do that..

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 21:30:29 -0700 (PDT), Matty F
wrote:

You may be able to discredit a few names (probably put
there by warmists such as yourself)

What makes you think denialists are so unnaturally virtuous that they
would resist the temptation to up the figures by adding bogus entries.
I would have thought that was a much more likely scenario.

but there are still
tens of thousands of scientists that disagree with you.

This is a blatantly bogus claim. You chose to ignore the research
that deduced at most 200 climate scientists still agreed with the
petition, a fraction of those claimed, and an even smaller fraction of
those working in the field. Extrapolating that across the other
genres, you might perhaps get a thousand or two scientists at most.

You might say that environmental and Earth sciences are
the most appropriate sciences. I disagree.

Disagreement with the simplest and most obvious facts are the usual
hallmark of a denialist, but your choosing to disagree doesn't change
those facts!

I'll agree that medicine is not particularly relevant to
climate, however at least they should know how to read a
thermometer properly and write the readings down without
fudging them or changing them many years later.

You just didn't read any of the critique at all, did you? The
'institute' was named after an obscure rural road junction where one
would turn off to go to a National Monument. The UK equivalent would
probably be "The Cheddar Gorge Junction Institute", or "The Stonehenge
Roundabout Institute" or something like that. No institution, medical
or otherwise, actually exists beyond someone's imagination.

Engineers and physicists and chemists work in the real
world on real problems, and their jobs are on the line if
they make mistakes.

But as above, as we have no idea how many of the signatories are
actually really scientists of any description, let alone senior
academics in a their discipline, it's all rather irrelevant.

But climate scientists can make all the mistakes they
like.

Nonsense. Look at the barrage of negative publicity every time a
climate scientist is seen to make a mistake, while by comparison
mistakes by people in other disciplines are rarely if ever mentioned.

Their predictions are never right.

I have explained many times in threads here that there is a
significant difference between understanding the past and predicting
the future.

If "the science is settled" on climate, why does the world
need so many climate scientists?

Because that phrase refers only to the fact that it is settled man is
contributing significantly to global warming. My own ball-park
research - which I recall you flunked out of endeavouring to repeat
for yourself, I'm still awaiting the answers to my five questions -
suggests that natural forces are contributing about an 1/8th of the
current warming, and man is contributing the rest. Other figures are
a little different, but all are similar enough to claim that man is
creating most of the current warming trend. Only in that sense is it
shown that: "The science is settled". Not if nor how much nor how
soon it will really bite, etc. There are still many areas where a
great deal more work is needed.

The answer of course is that we don't need more than a
few, to keep accurate records. And they can't even do
that.

Denialist opinion stated as though it were fact.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article ,
Java Jive wrote:

Nonsense. Look at the barrage of negative publicity every time a
climate scientist is seen to make a mistake, while by comparison
mistakes by people in other disciplines are rarely if ever mentioned.

could that be because these "climate scientists" are responsible for a
large amount of spending?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

It's not the scientists who are responsible for a large amount of
spending, it's politicians. However, I take your point that as the
spending is done, albeit by proxy, in climate science's name, then
inevitably that will rebound badly on climate science when they get it
wrong. This is why it was something of an own-goal by some early
players to 'go public' too soon, and then to place far too much
reliance on modelling.

But the problems with the models, albeit they are very real, should
not be taken to mean that the whole science is worthless.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:01:51 +0100, charles
wrote:

could that be because these "climate scientists" are responsible for a
large amount of spending?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

I am working on the theory that volcanoes change thwe behviour of the Hadley Ferrel systems. The recent superstorm cropped up a few day after the recent eruption and etc etc (moron he http://my.opera.com/Weatherlawyer/bl...mment112183212)

I even threw in the thread about bird migration (no kitchen sink threads were worthy.)

Anyway in Britain we get a cold turn that is more felt than measured before and eruption so I am putting the house on another eruption. The fronts are all lined up wrong for Indonesia, more likely South America but my favourite would be the Congo.

A lot of the behaviour that takes place on the "BoM southern hemisphere chart" is missing this time but I don't know if that is a requirement. Things are obviously different for the continuation of the set-up. The same blocked Low has appeared in the channel between Australia and Antarctica.

So if anyone of you is feeling distressed with symptoms similar to the early onset of flue, try the diet I suggest on the above link. Completely starve yourself if you had chest pains from the 14th on.

Well I have had my say. Sorry to intrude. Good luck.

On 20/09/13 20:05, Weatherlawyer wrote:
(moron he http://my.opera.com/Weatherlawyer/bl...mment112183212)


Did you really mean to say that?

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

I'd like to think he's just taking the **** (viz: "moron link"), but,
if you follow said link, sadly one can't actually be sure.

Still, he could be right, although he left out the bit about Elvis and
Lord Lucan living secretly in Area 51 and going out every night in
UFOs, flying them around the world along ley lines, and abducting
latter day druids, all of which has doubtless been proven by
'scientific' research.

Nice weather maps though. Perhaps the most useful contribution he
could make would be to tell us where they came from?

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 22:37:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Weatherlawyer wrote:

Well I have had my say.

Indeed but WTF were you talking about?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Friday, 20 September 2013 21:01:37 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/09/13 20:05, Weatherlawyer wrote:

(moron he http://my.opera.com/Weatherlawyer/bl...mment112183212)


Did you really mean to say that?

Moron do you mean or the flight of fancy?

Either way, yes.
I got high on what I was discovering. I had been working on it for a few months and all of a sudden it just dropped in my lap.

I felt it fitted in, as it will totally change meteorology and kick glowballs in the goolies for good and all.

Some laws concerning the relationship between Volcanoes and Tropical Storms:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...es/lfW8oS7VEh4

Concerning Glowballs and climatology:
The art is based on what logs the clique have dredged out of Siberian bogs. Siberian weather is not anything like comparable to the weather we have in temperate climates with trees that grow fat in several centuries.

In Siberia what constitutes good or bad weather may change in a day and go back again for more. Rules that apply to dendochronology can't possibly be used with them as cross references. But that is all thye have to go on and IIRC, only 12 logs at that.

And how are they supposed to estimate if the trees grew in muskeg or in relatively desert-dry permafrost?

On Siberian coasts the temperature can range from below freezing to heatwave in the same day quite often. But even with warm weather it is a desert and normal rules for vegetation don't apply.

With a little research, it becomes obvious that even in similar climates the so called science can't be relied on. When some parts of a country the size of the USA are suffering drought another part is suffering flooding.

How can they extrapolate for that over centuries?

And finally, since the depredation on European trees was intense from a period approximately following the Napoleonic wars, virtually ALL weather records are from a time that followed massive climate change.

Ice cores are nonsense too for a variety of reasons not least because with dust grows algae -so there is no such thing as pristine. And the pollution in ice migrates through it.

And even if that were not true, ice migrates of it's own accord on glaciers.. That is how the crevasses in them develop. Glaciers are actually sitting on flowing rivers.

There is so much the general public is unaware of due to bad journalism and self interested PR. Those involved need to be seen as competent and worthwhile in order to keep their jobs and to get grants. It a muck heap all the way through.

I don't know what the reason the BBC had for it's Machiavellian activity but serving the public was not an objective. It was more likely something to do with restoring the kudos of the Met Office (which is now the Met Office and Climate Gate.

Fortunately everyone interested was alerted by their stupidity. Seriously, any decent Meteorologist working there these days must be cut to ribbons even if he is impartial (as most are.) Take a shufty at the arguments about the subject on uk.sci.weather.

Before climategate I was impartial. I still was afterwards but leaned towards sceptical. Now I am opposed to anything about carbon dioxide being a cause. Deforestation is one thing but the product of volcanoes is another. (I think the carbon cycle restores so called fossil fuels. It's the only way to explain the presence of limestone in the overburden.)

But what finally clinched it for me was realising the depredations in the forest belts of Central America and the Caribbean was adversely affecting the reading on the worlds largest chimney downwind: Hawaii.

Not only is more and more carbon dioxide produced in the Gulf of Mexico but stripped land there (think Haiti) feeds minerals to the Pacific and this increases the phytoplankton levels disastrously in so called el nino years supplying yet more CO2 to that sole station responsible for all the bull****..

And it is ALL about 0.6 degrees Centigrade in 300 feet of ocean surface in that particularly badly affected region. (Read what I put in that thread on my blog about air currents during explosive volcanic episodes.)

Interestingly, devastation in Central America began at about the same time as in Western Europe with the harvesting of guano.

Rant mode off.
Sorry about all that.

On 22/09/13 03:22, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Rant mode off.
Sorry about all that.

Not at all. You have raised some interesting points.

Its not often that I get new information on AGW but you actually raised
some points I hadn't heard raised before..

The book/paper* I cited a few days ago is well worth reading in depth.
There's a whole sections devoted to the deficiencies of the IPCC model
and models in general and a whole section devoted to 'problems with the
data' which is your line.

I would say that the problems are less than you state, but real and
valid nonetheless.

Reconstricting te past is a black art, but it occasionally gets a bt greyer.

My B-I-L (geologist in research) was involved a decade or two ago in
helping to 'correct' carbon dating.

C14 as you know is continually manufactured in the atmosphere, from
cosmic ray bombardment, and what is left in old organic material under
the ground is a function of how long its been there (cosmic rays don't
penetrate the ground much) and also what the cosmic ray flux was at the
time it grew...

They needed to correlate C14 dates with other things.

And the same problems happen when trying to date using other radioisotopes..

Anyway that's why real science usually comes with a health warning: AGW
came with a health guarantee, and that's is why it is deeply suspicious.

The excuse was that it was simply too important to allow it to be
challenged by vested interests and or have people uncertain about it.

As the temperatures stabilise and begin to fall that looks less like
well meaning good intentions than a cynical exercise in bad intentions
for profit...

*http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/CCR-II-Full.pdf

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

I work with forecast charts. Analysis charts (the ones based on solid data) are prepared at the end of every 6 hour shift and can only be made up of information that is devoid of butterfly effect; that is, stripped of use for any other signal other than meteorology.

A prime example of analysis charts can be found he
http://www.woksat.info/wwp7.html (surprisingly few visitors considering the wealth of material on there.)

Here are the ones I collect. I haven't got around to putting a fraction of the stuff I used to base my theory on because I have only just got an ISP and as you can see am very busy with the rest of it.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/..._pressure.html

http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/char...Refresh+ View

http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/char...t=Refresh+View

http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/char...t=Refresh+View

http://weather.gc.ca/ensemble/naefs/cartes_e.html

http://weather.gc.ca/data/analysis/947_50.gif not much use but when it's gone it's gone

http://www.usno.navy.mil/NOOC/nmfc-p...b/abiosair.jpg

http://www.usno.navy.mil/NOOC/nmfc-p...b/abpwsair.jpg

http://www.tropicalstormrisk.com/

http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/

http://my.opera.com/Weatherlawyer/bl...-lost-my-files

http://my.opera.com/Weatherlawyer/bl...mment112228502

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/130922_rpts.html

http://www.usno.navy.mil/JTWC/

http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/eq/latest/index_EN?list=w

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/uk.sci.weather

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!fo...eo.earthquakes

The Swiss earthquakes site far surpasses the NEIC lists as the US changed their format recently to a Googlie****ation. The Smithsonian did even worse with their volcano archive but they were never much good except for the archive -which was superb. But can you believe a top notch site like that would empty its old servers before they brought the new ones on line?

Followed Google's mantra into oblivion as far as I am concerned. But what blew me away was the timing. There are plenty more private volcano news sites, some of them much better than the Smithsonian as far as news is concerned.

I started out this round looking for what causes Blocking Highs. It turns out they follow volcanic eruptions. Ordinarily the Warm Pool derives its heat from high cloud made of thin ice that changes the frequency of sunlight to the red. Red shift in stars is thus explained.

(I never liked the red shift theory as it doesn't explain anything like the detail involved in listening to trains on straight long lengths of track.)

Anyway, this high cloud occurs over the equator actually following the ITCZ.. So why do tropical storms occur with thicker lower cloud? Surely they can't be following cooler water?

Then I noticed that the dates for tropical storms were all more or less the same for one hemisphere or the other; April to October/November up here.

All except for the North Atlantic. But guess what the season is for US tornadoes?

So we now had tropical storms following the ITCZ but ignoring the altus and following the tracks of the thicker cloud that occurs with stormy weather everywhere?
Really?

So, being religious I asked god: WTF?
And ye beholdeth ye answer. Can you imagine god actually talks like that?

I suppose you do because you are stupid. Never give me any more cheek or I will tell him to give you boils.

Got it?

So now I am looking at the BoM chart and expecting the large Blocking Lows because it is September and this is the time of year when the ice extent down there is at its greatest. (Weather is caused by the same acoustics the idiots in charge of seismographs call seismic waves.. and the slope to the 2 mile high Antarctic coast is easiest at this time of year.)

So now I am thinking:
"Why not follow these blocks and see what happens?
And that was in June.
June?
WTF?
Ah Solstice. OK.

It would have been too only there was a volcanic eruption and then another and when the next one occurred I started rethinking. Now when that black precipitate breaks up on the coast of Antarctica you can relate it to earthquakes. Only 1. There weren't any suitable quakes. And 2. They were not behaving like they should, they were bouncing off and going round again.

I already knew that when large systems break up, they do so when volcanic or seismic activity takes place off western Norway. Because that is a not too irregular occurrence in the North Atlantic. Spitzbergen or Jan van Mayen Island get an hit.

And I knew snowy weather often out of season was also related to that sort of thing and that it had been present in June in some places. So I was actually expecting something in the Norwegian regions.

We have an occasional poster who sometimes reports in from there. He once specifically asked me because I commented on the first time he mentioned odd weather, saying that a large quake would take place that was Christmastime in 2004.

He never came and I never thought much more about it. Getting info on quakes below4.5 in Europe is impossible or was until I looked for other sites besides the NEIC.

One thing led to another and now I even have you reading a huge essay of mine. I was stuck with the Hadley Ferrel process and no means of explaining the thick clouds that develop into tropical storms. Did you ever see a mares tail formation. That is the prime signal for large value tropical storm weather.

But it is signalled over Britain. Because WE get a cyclone too, whenever there is a tropical storm. EVERY TIME. It has got to be acoustics. Nothing else fits.

So back on topic:

Cut down the trees and alter the acoustics of the land. It is as simple as that. It can't be fossil fuel, we have been rationing it since 1970. Scrubbing it and anyway it is full of vegetable fertiliser. It has to be, by definition. Did you never see a blocked gutter in the good old days that lacked vibrant plant life?

On a bloody roof?
What did you imagine was feeding the algae that grows on roofs?

And one large volcanic eruption produces as much carbon dioxide as we burn and more. And it is a natural fish food. Hawaii makes the Arctic teem with life. Just that one chimney. That one garden paradise. That one mountain washing to the sea. But only when the wind is for the Bering Sea.

I was talking about the BULL **** everybody else swallows every day that a politician or journalist speaks.

On Sunday, 22 September 2013 08:35:47 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/09/13 03:22, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Rant mode off.
Sorry about all that.

Not at all. You have raised some interesting points.
Its not often that I get new information on AGW but you actually raised
some points I hadn't heard raised before..

The book/paper* I cited a few days ago is well worth reading in depth.
There's a whole sections devoted to the deficiencies of the IPCC model
and models in general and a whole section devoted to 'problems with the
data' which is your line.

I would say that the problems are less than you state, but real and
valid nonetheless.

Reconstricting (nice fox, pa) the past is a black art, but it occasionally
gets a bit greyer.

My B-I-L (geologist in research) was involved a decade or two ago in
helping to 'correct' carbon dating.

C14 as you know is continually manufactured in the atmosphere, from
cosmic ray bombardment, and what is left in old organic material under
the ground is a function of how long its been there (cosmic rays don't
penetrate the ground much) and also what the cosmic ray flux was at the
time it grew...

They needed to correlate C14 dates with other things.
And the same problems happen when trying to date using other radioisotopes..

Anyway that's why real science usually comes with a health warning: AGW
came with a health guarantee, and that's is why it is deeply suspicious.
The excuse was that it was simply too important to allow it to be
challenged by vested interests and or have people uncertain about it.

As the temperatures stabilise and begin to fall that looks less like
well meaning good intentions than a cynical exercise in bad intentions
for profit...

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/CCR-II-Full.pdf

Most geology is now out of date. Thomas Gold blew it out of the water. But since then I have been looking at organic chemistry. You know H2S is a key in these odd sites such as cenotes and the like?

It makes a lot of metals behave as organic chemicals at depth. And we DON'T know the chemistry at depth when all matter is both gas, liquid and solid at more or less the same temperature. It might be possible to dissolve gold.. It will dissolve quartz.

We can't assume radio activity stops at the upper atmosphere. Nitrogen is converted to carbon under extreme pressure at near vacuum heights because of the speed of the ions involved.

Deeper that 5 miles, greater pressure exists. And what the geologists never mention in plain English is the types of metals that ARE ALWAYS found alongside the radioactive ones. They are the chemicals that the miners were looking for the decade that Congress asked General Groves to source some for them.

It may be that the metals associated with radium and the like are the actual precursors of the radio active ones. Which would blow all the earlier discredited methods of radiation dating out of the water.

Speaking of radiation. We have never EVER received anything but relatively healthy sunlight from the sun. Doesn't that strike you as odd behaviour for a nuclear reactor?

It turns out we have never produced fusion radiation that even approximates the expected signature of the sun. And certainly nothing like it has ever been made from any nuclear reactor on earth. Isn't that strange?

After a lifetime of research, with all we know to work with and all we have to work with we can't replicate fusion. It only took a couple of years to get fission; with the work done in secret and nobody knowing what they were doing not even, really, those who did.

And nobody knew it was possible.
Whilst they were fighting a bloody WAR!

It only took me a couple of months to work out what causes Blocking Highs. And if I am right about my findings concerning the role of volcanoes, I have discovered the holey grill of geo-physics.

I didn't even go to school for the last three years of my education. And I could do that?

WTFH have the scientists (the most sentient of "knowing man") been playing at?
Have you any idea how much Japan has spent on seismic research?
The power input the Met Office's computer requires to produce one of those charts above?

Thanks for the link. I will read it. I believe I grabbed it yesterday.

That's not hard ...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 08:38:12 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

Blimey, someone who makes Java Jive look sensible.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Thanks for that, though perhaps I should point out that the up to date
link should be:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/w...PressureColour

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 18:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Weatherlawyer
wrote:

Here are the ones I collect.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/..._pressure.html

--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
Weatherlawyer wrote:

[snip pages of compleet cobblers]

Blimey, someone who makes Java Jive look sensible.

Not he way I read it. Basically saying AGW is a load of ******** One
modest volacanic eruption can put out more CO2 and other **** than a
lifetime of human activity. I paraphrase of course.
--
bert

in 1258241 20130923 223025 bert ] wrote:
In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
Weatherlawyer wrote:

[snip pages of compleet cobblers]

Blimey, someone who makes Java Jive look sensible.

Not he way I read it. Basically saying AGW is a load of ******** One
modest volacanic eruption can put out more CO2 and other **** than a
lifetime of human activity. I paraphrase of course.

In the process of paraphrasing you managed to get it back-to-front!

http://news.discovery.com/earth/weat...ate-110627.htm

"Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming
carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year."

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 6:53:22 PM UTC+12, Bob Martin wrote:

http://news.discovery.com/earth/weat...ate-110627.htm



"Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming

carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year."

I don't believe that. Please tell me the number of gigatons of CO2 that you allege humans and volcanoes emit each year. I can't see those figures at your link.