The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 2010 not 'warmest year ever' - close but no banana > Comments

2010 not 'warmest year ever' - close but no banana : Comments

By John McLean, published 24/1/2011

When it comes to temperature 2010 was a bronze medal performance in a lacklustre field.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
No answers at all, have you, bonmot, but you are not stuck for words, just using the wrong words if you do not wish to make a fool of yourself.

Not much option if you are a fraud backer is there bonmot?

Good news about Climategate. There is unrest about the failure to properly investigate this travesty of science.

“The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) remains deeply concerned about the failure by academic and parliamentary inquires to fully and independently investigate the 'Climategate' affair.

The latest follow-up report by the Science and Technology Committee on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) confirms that the Climategate inquiries had serious flaws, lacked balance and transparency and failed to achieve their objective to restore trust and confidence in British climate science.

The report by the Science and Technology Committee shows that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were deficient and biased.”

http://thegwpf.org/press-releases/2296-flawed-climategate-inquiries-failed-to-restore-confidence-in-uk-climate-science.html

Is that too off topic for you bonmot? You might want to tell us what Skeptical Science” or (un)realclimate, or one of the other fraud backers say about it.

Remember when there were enough people fooled to have polls which showed a majority favoured action on climate change? We do not have polls these days. Not since the one last year when the majority thought that climate change did not warrant action.

We just have talks by that wierdo Naomi Oreskes who talks about a "consensus" as if it ever existed, and as if it mattered if it did.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 9:00:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane,
I think that when all the governments of the world plus the majority of scientists (and even the Pope) agree on something, it's about as close to a consensus as you will ever be able to get.

A handful of detractors, financially backed up by industy groups with significant vested interests may have an alternative view but not one with any real legitimacy until they can come up with a coherent and unified theory of their own.

It seems to me that they are divided between warming/no warming/cooling, AGW or not, plus all the iterations inbetween - any view but the official one will do.

Using terms like "fraud" without any foundation is demonstrating more of an alarmist stance than the vilified official view.

I think Oreskes made some good points, particularly in regard to the same strategies employed by the passive smoking, acid rain and ozone hole skeptics and has history to back her up.
Posted by rache, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 1:00:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All the governments of the world do not agree, Rache. The Czech Republic considers it a serious mistake. Its President, Vaclav Klaus, has written a book, "Blue Planet, Green Shackles".

Here is some of what he said after reading Robert Carter's book, "Climate, the Counter Consensus"

"Let me declare from the outset that I consider global warming dogma (and its widespread acceptance) to be one of the most costly and undemocratic mistakes in generations, and I try, therefore, to contribute to its demolition.

When I listen to the views and arguments of the global warming alarmists, they sound very similar to the arguments of the former politicians, journalists and public intellectuals in Communist Czechoslovakia.

Of course, the polemic about global warming has a very respectable scientific dimension. But in its substance and consequences, the debate is not part of the scientific discourse about factors influencing swings in global temperature. It is part of the public policy debate about man and society, about our political, economic and social systems, about our freedom or its possible loss. This difference should be made explicit."

I suppose you believe we should trust scientific bodies like the Met Office, which publicly predicted a mild winter in the UK last year, to back the usual cry of the alarmists of "hottest year yet", while secretly giving a prediction of a severe winter to the Cabinet.

Would that come within your definition of "fraud" rache, or is it just corruption. You should read Carter's book.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 7:34:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apart from Oreskes’ ratbaggery there are 2 justifications for claiming a consensus. The Doran and Zimmerman [Doze] survey is of course a farrago, a dolt’s nose-pick and can be ridiculed on a number of counts including the sample size of 2 vagrants, 34 bureaucrats and various odds and sods. Another good account of Doze is here:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf

However, the Schneider effort has far greater pretension to academic quality and validity; Schneider’s effort is here [and what a fitting research epitaph it is];

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

Schneider states that their selection criteria for distinguishing between climate research winners and deniers/losers was 2-fold:

“We tallied the number of climate-relevant publications authored
or coauthored by each researcher (defined here as expertise) and
counted the number of citations for each of the researcher’s four
highest-cited papers (defined here as prominence) using Google
Scholar. We then imposed an a priori criterion that a researcher
must have authored a minimum of 20 climate publications to be
considered a climate researcher, thus reducing the database to 908
researchers.”

At the risk of being unscientific I would point out at this juncture that Miskolczi’s 3 papers from 2004, 2007 and 2010, which are groundbreaking and unrebutted to an almost Einsteinian extent have had no citations at all.

If one stops even for a brief moment and considers how group-think works one can readily see how the mutual reinforcement would enable pro-AGW ‘scientists’ to dominate such a survey given that they, as the e-mails eloquently demonstrated, effectively control the main climate publishing venues. When you throw in venal political support, vast financial rewards and Kafkaesque treatment of dissenters [again Miskolczi is a salutory example] then you can see that an effective scientific monotone, as found by Schneider, will result.

The unfortunate thing is that Schneider’s vomitous paper is being readily used by craven politicians like Combet to justify their government’s position on AGW; this is not a consensus but group-think and official censorship
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 7:49:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Silly Filly (Tuesday, 25 January 2011 12:48:01 PM) says, quoting John McLean, "It’s widely recognised that the El Nino-Southern Oscillation has a big influence on weather in eastern Africa." Should we laugh or cry?

Silly Filly, the El Nino- Southern Oscillation (ENSO ), while derived in the Pacific Ocean, has a significant near-global impact on weather systems and consequently climate. It is a naturally occurring process that history (and some weather statistics, notably the East India Company weather records, and various ships' logs) shows has been ongoing for centuries.

The impact of ENSO (El Nino) events can be global and severe. For instance, the 1789–93 strong pre-industrial era ENSO resulted in the following: crop failures in France just prior to the Revolution (in combination with a weakened North Atlantic Oscillation); the failure of the southern Asia monsoons resulting in the deaths of over 600,000 people in the Madras area, India; extended droughts in southern Africa resulting in the Mahlatule famine; reduced river flows along the Nile caused by reduced precipitation in the Ethiopian highlands; droughts on a number of Atlantic Oceans islands including St Helena and Montserrat, and throughout the Caribbean and nearby Mexico; a severe drought in eastern Australia that caused colonial Governor, Arthur Phillip, to note that the Tank Stream, upon which the infant settlement of Sydney depended for its fresh water supply, had ceased to flow for three years.
Posted by Raredog, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 9:20:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

The “Global Warming Policy Foundation” – a right-wing think-tank set up by the doyen right-winger Lord Lawson and registered as an educational charity?

And Benny Peiser who is editor of Energy & Environment, the journal of choice for ‘denialists’?

The same Benny Peiser who is revered as a “global warming expert” by the Heartland Institute?

And you expect people to take the “Global Warming Policy Foundation” seriously when they can’t even quote the Science and Technology Committee correctly?

<< The Czech Republic considers it a serious mistake. Its President, Vaclav Klaus, has written a book, "Blue Planet, Green Shackles". >>

Perhaps Herr President Klaus has a communication problem, his book has not made an impact on the Czech government:

http://www.iea.org/textbase/pm/?mode=cc&action=view&country=Czech%20Republic
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 10:19:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy