Would that be because they have two heads and thus are not required to swivel their eyes? If so, it appears to be the only difference between them and the others on the loony fringe.
On the other hand, it does tell us a lot about our metropolitan voters!
I'm going to table a motion at the next GP conference to have a wind turbine erected on Duff's head with blades that, in a stiff breeze, clout him about the face several times a second.
A truly excellent idea, Punkscience. But in the interest of balance, I think you should also propose installing solar panels in the inside of George Monbiot's underpants, since my GP friends tell me that is whence the sun shines…
"since my GP friends tell me that is whence the sun shines…"
Ahahahaaaaa . . .
It truly does, Larry, old chap. Conservatives, however, frequently call for a wind turbine to be mounted in front of his mouth to harness the hot air which, they opine, spews forth as a veritable gale.
I am clearly of the former conviction. George rules.
The long lost Larry Teabag, forsooth! It was worth wading through 'Little Willy's' usual diarrhea just to hear from you again.
Incidentally, 'Little Willy', what's happened to all that global warming in the last 10 years? No, on second thoughts don't bother replying to that, your written equivalent of the clicks and grunts of a Kalahari bushman is simply too, too, tedious.
It's marched steadily upwards. What David is talking about is the long since refuted denier talking point that, if you start a global GISTEMP series in 1998, 2008 is lower than 1998.
The problem here is of course that it's a Texan Sharpshooter fallacy…sorry…lie; the only reason to pick 1998 as the start year is because 1998 was very hot. The chart looks very different if you start in 1997, 1999, or somewhere intellectually defensible like "the beginning of systematic temperature records". Basically, it's as if you argued that Wayne Rooney was crap because he scored a hat trick last week but only one goal this week. There is a nice paper at Tim Lambert's.
However, David Duff is actually too daft to use his talking points correctly. Quite an achievement. We are in the year 2009. Ten years ago is 1999…not 1998… As you can see in the charts here, 1999 was an unusually cool year and you could plot quite an impressive warming trend from there….but we won't, because we're telling the truth.
For those not already dozing off at the prospect of a 'warmer' vs. 'denier' debate you can, if our host will forgive me pointing to my own site ('a poor thing but mine own') where you can see an absolutely dead accurate graph, because Dr. James Hansen, the 'warmer's' guru of gurus, actually drew it giving his three forecasts as to global temperatures in 2008. Some "Texan sharpshooter", perhaps has had the enfrontery to mark *in bright red* what actually happened. http://www.typepad.com/site/blogs/6a00d8341c5caf5…
In the meantime, the rest of you might care to read these words:
""some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added."
That was from Dr. Hansen's former boss at NASA.
Finally here are just a few quotes from some ignorant people "too daft to use […] talking points correctly"
"“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata."
On the other hand you could go and read Tim Lambert, the only Aussie coward I have ever come across, a man who wilts in the face of an argument.
But look at how 2009 is shaping up – 2008 is an anomaly in the general trend (downwards), as was 1998 (upwards). Unless you use rolling averages, you prove precisely bugger all.
I'm afraid I can't see your graph – the typepad link above takes me to a password screen.
I have a question about your quotations, and an opportunity for you to make some ready money.
[1] CO2 emissions:
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
By this argument, natural greenhouse gasses have either “virtually“ “little impact” or “absolutely no” effect. Are you arguing that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect? That would be quite a strong claim.
[2] There are, as I’m sure you know, those who believe that temperatures will continue to rise, and others who believe that they will not. Potentially, this offers the scope for a wager: after all, if two people strongly disagree about the chances of an event, be it on the ponies tomorrow or on the global mean temperature twenty years from now, both will be happy to stake sums of money confident in the expectation of winning.
James Annan, a mathematician turned climate scientist, has for sometime been soliciting bets along these lines. You can read about some of them here. As he expects, in line with the IPCC, temperatures to rise, and other people believe that “global warming stopped in 1998”, you would think they would be eager to take his money. Oddly, this is not so: a number of people who claim that “global warming stopped in 1998”, are unwilling to stake money on this belief.
Can you cite all those quotes? Are you sure they are exactly accurate? What the fuck does a palaeontologist have to do with the sodding atmosphere? Or Hansen's former boss, a generalist civil servant as it happens?
Further, you haven't addressed the substantive point – instead of copy-pasting yards of bafflegab. Is it because you're whining like a little bitch? I rather think it is.
On the grounds that the Duffster probably doesn't have the good taste to frequent serious blogs that actually do research [*], he may have missed the link to Alex's excellent crucifixion.
[*] yes, this is an open goal; as with Punkscience's 'smaller than average penis' reference, you'll look really clever if you refer to it as a way of attacking this blog in every comment you make.
Let me make something clear, even if you hadn't already guessed it – I failed 'O'-level maths, physics and chemistry, not just slightly, but by a mile! Oddly enough, this gave me an advantage in this AGW debate because I came to it several years ago in a state of blissful ignorance and therefore *complete neutrality*. To begin with I was disposed to agree with the 'warmers' because their coverage in the media was overwhelming, but I was curious and I nurtured one slight doubt because I had lived through the 'ice age is coming' scare of the 1970s. The internet provided me with the means to dig into it and there I came across the 'deniers' – very few of them then. I read both sides, and despite our very superior host's suggestion, many of them (on both sides) were highly technical and I struggled to make sense of them – but I kept trying. However, two things became as quickly clear as the mythical elephant in the living room. First, many of the leading scientific 'warmers' were, shall we say, shy of offering up their computer codes and research details to others who wished to check. Second, their behaviour when questioned was to fly into a rage and if they owned a blog to instantly ban and censor anyone who doubted their theories irrespective of how politely the criticism was made.
As my own, er, 'research' progressed I began to understand that there was an influence of gigantic proportions acting upon the earth's climate – so huge that it it really was the 'elephant in the sitting room' and everyone was ignoring it – the sun. Once again I have struggled with the science but compared to the theories of the 'greenhouse gas' brigade and their fanatical aversion to Mankind, the astrophysicists seem to me to have something serious to say and their *cautious* and *provisional* theories which are based on research which is open to all impresses me enormously.
Edmund, a rarity on this site in that he makes his points with courtesy, mentions a bet offered by a scientist (alas, your link doesn't work, either, Edmund!) that global temperatures will rise. Setting aside for the moment the (very important) dispute over which method, land-based or satellite, offers the best record of temperatures, I would take a bet that in fact global temperatures will drop over the next few years. The sun has definitely *not* got his hat on and is definitely *not* coming out to play according to the ominous *lack* of sun spot activity.
My advice to you remains what it has been for some time – buy long Johns!
"Let me make something clear, even if you hadn’t already guessed it – I failed ‘O’-level maths, physics and chemistry, not just slightly, but by a mile!"
No. We'd already guessed. The lack of anything approaching an understanding of basic statistics, science, or the physical world was, unfortunately, pretty clear.
"Oddly enough, this gave me an advantage in this AGW debate because I came to it several years ago in a state of blissful ignorance and therefore *complete neutrality*."
Sure. And when you pop into the doctor and they send you down to the bin-man for a bit of a chat about why your lung is hurting don't be too surprised if the bin-man's "complete neutrality" on the issue might be mistaken for not knowing what the hell he is talking about. You might want to consider that.
As for the cobblers about the computer models some have released their code. If memory serves its from Princeton in the United States: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/fms
There you go. Go play and learn about computer modelling. Its only been public since 2002 or thereabouts, so there's no reason for you to have found it.
In other cases the model is proprietary so people – even at universities – are careful about giving away millions of dollars of research funding, in much the same way as your bank isn't rushing to give its credit scoring algorithm to the general public. If you came to them with a couple of million in cash in a bag you can then have the source code.
But – going nuts and accepting that you have a point which isn't the case – even if the next 2 years are cooler than 1999 the trend is upwards. And its the trend that's the key thing.
Well, Adam, here is just one example (there countless others) of refusal to disclose, this time by our very own Prof. Phil Jones of the Met Office's Hadley Centre which, as I understand it, makes Jones a government employee and yet even FoI requests are met with ducking and diving and swerving. Now my question is very simple, Adam, as you would expect from a simple man like me, why is Jones hiding his research which has been produced at the state's expense? Those "millions of dollars" do not come from private corporations, it is public money and I'm a member of the public. Of course, the old-fashioned notion that irrespective of anything, a true scientist always offers up his or her findings in an open way for other scientists to examine is not applied in the world of climate 'science'. It used to be called the 'scientific method', didn't it? Now we have something more akin to Papal pronouncements! http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6203
But who cares, anyway? Prof. Jones has done his, er, 'research' at the tax-payers' expense and published the results. Why should he hide the means by which he reached his conclusions – they have no commercial value and he has been paid – probably overpaid – for his services?
Your tax pounds fund the OS. But if you want an OS map, you still have to pay for it. If you write to them asking for one for free so you can tell them it's rubbish based on your woo-woo amateur cartography skills, they'll tell you to get lost.
Similarly, your tax pounds fund the Met Office. But if you want a Met Office dataset, you still have to pay for it. If you write to them asking for one for free so you can tell them it's rubbish based on your woo-woo amateur meteorology skills, they'll tell you to get lost.
So the production of OS maps which has been ongoing for just over 200 years and which was originally created by the government for mainly military purposes but which today has a commercial by-product in the sale of maps which entails absolutely no new research, and whose results have no bearing on government policy or the future of the planet, is the same as a professor who indulges his curiosity in climate 'science' at my expense, propounds a theory based on that research which has enormous ramifications for the entire world, and yet refuses to allow anyone to look at his original codes – are one and the same thing!
Not for the first time Mr. Band, I cannot help wondering about the strange parallel world in which you exist.
Whoever decided that both the OS and the Met Office should operate under the same trading model clearly thought they were the same thing – and they were right.
The OS owns a huge database of geographical points. The Met Office owns a huge climate model. They both have to find ways to make money from their property. They won't make any money by giving it away for free.
Historical and regularly up-dated geographical data which is sold to others for commercial reasons is absolutely as different as can be from a university professor doing original research at tax-payers' expense and proposing a startling new scientific theory based on that research. Jones and/or the Met Office are *not* offering it for sale for the simple reason that it has *no* commercial value, they are sitting on it to ensure that no-one can check it.
Professor Phil Jones doesn't work for the Met Office. He works for the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. A press release which includes this fact is the first result in a google search for "phil jones hadley centre" or for "phil jones met office".
a commercial by-product in the sale of maps which entails absolutely no new research,
Yes, that's right, Duff, OS maps are never updated.
Jones and/or the Met Office are *not* offering it for sale for the simple reason that it has *no* commercial value,
Not true. You, Duff, for one, want to see it. You would presumably pay some amount of money (even if only a small one) to see it. Therefore it has commercial value.
Are you really having some problems comprehending the idea that things have value? If so, lets add basic economics to the list of things that you come at from, in your delightful phrase, "complete neutrality".
As for Professor Phil Jones (PhD) we are talking about the editor of the journal Climate Change, a fellow of the Met Society in both the UK and the US, these aren't things you wake up one morning with. In 1997 he won the Outstanding Scientific Paper Award by the Environmental Research Laboratories for "A search for Human Influences on the Thermal Structure of the Atmosphere" which you can find in Nature, 382, pages 39-46 (1996). That's a pretty solid CV for saying things about climate change. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v382/n6586/a…
There's also a handy section which explains in laymans terms why your line of thinking is so wrong- headed. I leave it to you to do the required years of study to challenge it in any meaningful manner. That means that I look forward to hearing from you in, say, 2018 or thereabouts – assuming its 3 years to get a degree, 4 for a PhD, Maybe one more year for a Masters if required.
And, no, he's not going to hand over the computer models to just anyone. If you want to pay to play then you can have a chat to the University: http://www.uea.ac.uk/business/ideas
Basically you tell them what you want, they say it'll cost a million quid, you turn up with a million quid and then its game on. Otherwise you're just begging, because this is stuff they sell.
"And, no, he’s not going to hand over the computer models to just anyone."
May I correct that slightly, I'm sure it was only a slip of the fingers that Alex failed to spot but it should read:
'And, no, he's not going to hand over the computer models to *anyone*!
The first question is – why not?
The second question is – what happened to open science?
And before you get all hoity-toity with me, Alex, perhaps you should remind yourself of the difference between raw data and computer models. We all know the ingredients for a cheese souffle but *it's what you do to them* that decides whether the result is a light, delicious dish or a stodgy, collapsed pud!
"Commenting on this blog is conditional on three criteria; you need to be interesting, true, or at least funny. So far you're 0 for 3, and I am going to delete anything else you send."
Thus spake Alex the Yorkshire Canter who in similar vein to the 'scientists' he admires refuses to tell us which data set he prefers for accuracy, ground stations or satellites.
Once again I can only wonder what it is they have to hide? And why are they so "frit" – now where have I heard that word before …?
First Dave its Adam, not Alex. Lets add reading simple 4 letter English names to the list of your areas of "complete neutrality", along with basic science, computing, statistics, economics… I'd be rather worried at this stage. You did go to school, right?
As for me being a weasel, they're lovely animals with an immense reputation for cunning and guile and sexual potency – I believe the phrase is "shagging like demented weasels". Its rather sweet that you think of me that way, but I am married.
"Once again I can only wonder what it is they have to hide?"
And with that the Shark Was Jumped.
Apparently scientists are engaged in a huge conspiracy. Yes. That explains peoples unwillingness to give stuff that they'd like to be paid for. Obviously. It must be those nasty 9-foot tall blood drinking reptilian space-aliens that Mr Icke says are the Royal Family are in fact our nations senior scientists. Really.
And if you doubt the 9-foot tall aliens… it must be further evidence of a conspiracy.
Seriously. if you're thinking that scientists are good at hiding things, you've never met one. As a group scientists talk. Specifically scientists talk a lot about their subject, pretty much all day. In fact, in order to hide their super-secret-lizard-alien-conspiracy, scientists do everything that they aren't supposed to such as publish in internationally renowned journals like Nature.
And still no answer to the simple question – do you think that global temperatures are more accurately measured by surface stations or satellites?
Even a weasel one word "surface" or "satellite" answer would do. Then we could proceed. Although I find it strange that you ban from your site but 'speak' to me here.
"And still no answer to the simple question – do you think that global temperatures are more accurately measured by surface stations or satellites?"
Define accurately – it means specific things to a scientist. Much of our data comes from periods before satellites were even considered to be technically possible – we've come a long way since 1960.
Again, because you seem to be having trouble reading the information already provided to you – I suspect that is because its overly complex and uses big words – here is a (note a, not the) methodology: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/
"Even a weasel one word “surface” or “satellite” answer would do. Then we could proceed."
Aardvark. There you go. A one word answer. Quite why you think we're going to "proceed" is another matter – you appear to be unable to comprehend things that most people find basic.
"Although I find it strange that you ban from your site but ’speak’ to me here."
David you appear to be having the Adam / Alex problem again. Adam and Alex are two different words, and when the words that are used are different and happen to be names the people are usually different too. In my specific case I don't have a website. therefore have never banned anyone. On the other hand its possible to see Alex's point – why waste good electrons?
"the Greens came in ahead"
Would that be because they have two heads and thus are not required to swivel their eyes? If so, it appears to be the only difference between them and the others on the loony fringe.
On the other hand, it does tell us a lot about our metropolitan voters!
That Nick Griffin was on the radio this morning explaining how global warming is a hoax.
Probably because the barmy Greens were adding the polution caused by Auschwitz into their crazy equations.
So that Griffin isn't entirely a fat, stupid mouth-breather, then! I suppose he has to be right about something.
Huzzah! Green power!
I'm going to table a motion at the next GP conference to have a wind turbine erected on Duff's head with blades that, in a stiff breeze, clout him about the face several times a second.
A truly excellent idea, Punkscience. But in the interest of balance, I think you should also propose installing solar panels in the inside of George Monbiot's underpants, since my GP friends tell me that is whence the sun shines…
If only there were some way of harnessing the energy from jerking knees.
"since my GP friends tell me that is whence the sun shines…"
Ahahahaaaaa . . .
It truly does, Larry, old chap. Conservatives, however, frequently call for a wind turbine to be mounted in front of his mouth to harness the hot air which, they opine, spews forth as a veritable gale.
I am clearly of the former conviction. George rules.
The long lost Larry Teabag, forsooth! It was worth wading through 'Little Willy's' usual diarrhea just to hear from you again.
Incidentally, 'Little Willy', what's happened to all that global warming in the last 10 years? No, on second thoughts don't bother replying to that, your written equivalent of the clicks and grunts of a Kalahari bushman is simply too, too, tedious.
It's marched steadily upwards. What David is talking about is the long since refuted denier talking point that, if you start a global GISTEMP series in 1998, 2008 is lower than 1998.
The problem here is of course that it's a Texan Sharpshooter fallacy…sorry…lie; the only reason to pick 1998 as the start year is because 1998 was very hot. The chart looks very different if you start in 1997, 1999, or somewhere intellectually defensible like "the beginning of systematic temperature records". Basically, it's as if you argued that Wayne Rooney was crap because he scored a hat trick last week but only one goal this week. There is a nice paper at Tim Lambert's.
However, David Duff is actually too daft to use his talking points correctly. Quite an achievement. We are in the year 2009. Ten years ago is 1999…not 1998… As you can see in the charts here, 1999 was an unusually cool year and you could plot quite an impressive warming trend from there….but we won't, because we're telling the truth.
For those not already dozing off at the prospect of a 'warmer' vs. 'denier' debate you can, if our host will forgive me pointing to my own site ('a poor thing but mine own') where you can see an absolutely dead accurate graph, because Dr. James Hansen, the 'warmer's' guru of gurus, actually drew it giving his three forecasts as to global temperatures in 2008. Some "Texan sharpshooter", perhaps has had the enfrontery to mark *in bright red* what actually happened.
http://www.typepad.com/site/blogs/6a00d8341c5caf5…
In the meantime, the rest of you might care to read these words:
""some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added."
That was from Dr. Hansen's former boss at NASA.
Finally here are just a few quotes from some ignorant people "too daft to use […] talking points correctly"
"“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata."
On the other hand you could go and read Tim Lambert, the only Aussie coward I have ever come across, a man who wilts in the face of an argument.
Oops, sorry about that long link, that's just the way it came out.
But look at how 2009 is shaping up – 2008 is an anomaly in the general trend (downwards), as was 1998 (upwards). Unless you use rolling averages, you prove precisely bugger all.
That typepad link is asking for a password. If you could post them here, that would be great, thanks.
Hello David,
I'm afraid I can't see your graph – the typepad link above takes me to a password screen.
I have a question about your quotations, and an opportunity for you to make some ready money.
[1] CO2 emissions:
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
By this argument, natural greenhouse gasses have either “virtually“ “little impact” or “absolutely no” effect. Are you arguing that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect? That would be quite a strong claim.
[2] There are, as I’m sure you know, those who believe that temperatures will continue to rise, and others who believe that they will not. Potentially, this offers the scope for a wager: after all, if two people strongly disagree about the chances of an event, be it on the ponies tomorrow or on the global mean temperature twenty years from now, both will be happy to stake sums of money confident in the expectation of winning.
James Annan, a mathematician turned climate scientist, has for sometime been soliciting bets along these lines. You can read about some of them here. As he expects, in line with the IPCC, temperatures to rise, and other people believe that “global warming stopped in 1998”, you would think they would be eager to take his money. Oddly, this is not so: a number of people who claim that “global warming stopped in 1998”, are unwilling to stake money on this belief.
Will you be taking Annan up on his offer?
Can you cite all those quotes? Are you sure they are exactly accurate? What the fuck does a palaeontologist have to do with the sodding atmosphere? Or Hansen's former boss, a generalist civil servant as it happens?
Further, you haven't addressed the substantive point – instead of copy-pasting yards of bafflegab. Is it because you're whining like a little bitch? I rather think it is.
On the grounds that the Duffster probably doesn't have the good taste to frequent serious blogs that actually do research [*], he may have missed the link to Alex's excellent crucifixion.
[*] yes, this is an open goal; as with Punkscience's 'smaller than average penis' reference, you'll look really clever if you refer to it as a way of attacking this blog in every comment you make.
Sorry, sorry, sorry – here is the correct link:
http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/…
Let me make something clear, even if you hadn't already guessed it – I failed 'O'-level maths, physics and chemistry, not just slightly, but by a mile! Oddly enough, this gave me an advantage in this AGW debate because I came to it several years ago in a state of blissful ignorance and therefore *complete neutrality*. To begin with I was disposed to agree with the 'warmers' because their coverage in the media was overwhelming, but I was curious and I nurtured one slight doubt because I had lived through the 'ice age is coming' scare of the 1970s. The internet provided me with the means to dig into it and there I came across the 'deniers' – very few of them then. I read both sides, and despite our very superior host's suggestion, many of them (on both sides) were highly technical and I struggled to make sense of them – but I kept trying. However, two things became as quickly clear as the mythical elephant in the living room. First, many of the leading scientific 'warmers' were, shall we say, shy of offering up their computer codes and research details to others who wished to check. Second, their behaviour when questioned was to fly into a rage and if they owned a blog to instantly ban and censor anyone who doubted their theories irrespective of how politely the criticism was made.
As my own, er, 'research' progressed I began to understand that there was an influence of gigantic proportions acting upon the earth's climate – so huge that it it really was the 'elephant in the sitting room' and everyone was ignoring it – the sun. Once again I have struggled with the science but compared to the theories of the 'greenhouse gas' brigade and their fanatical aversion to Mankind, the astrophysicists seem to me to have something serious to say and their *cautious* and *provisional* theories which are based on research which is open to all impresses me enormously.
Edmund, a rarity on this site in that he makes his points with courtesy, mentions a bet offered by a scientist (alas, your link doesn't work, either, Edmund!) that global temperatures will rise. Setting aside for the moment the (very important) dispute over which method, land-based or satellite, offers the best record of temperatures, I would take a bet that in fact global temperatures will drop over the next few years. The sun has definitely *not* got his hat on and is definitely *not* coming out to play according to the ominous *lack* of sun spot activity.
My advice to you remains what it has been for some time – buy long Johns!
"*complete neutrality*"
ROFL
"Let me make something clear, even if you hadn’t already guessed it – I failed ‘O’-level maths, physics and chemistry, not just slightly, but by a mile!"
No. We'd already guessed. The lack of anything approaching an understanding of basic statistics, science, or the physical world was, unfortunately, pretty clear.
"Oddly enough, this gave me an advantage in this AGW debate because I came to it several years ago in a state of blissful ignorance and therefore *complete neutrality*."
Sure. And when you pop into the doctor and they send you down to the bin-man for a bit of a chat about why your lung is hurting don't be too surprised if the bin-man's "complete neutrality" on the issue might be mistaken for not knowing what the hell he is talking about. You might want to consider that.
As for the cobblers about the computer models some have released their code. If memory serves its from Princeton in the United States:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/fms
There you go. Go play and learn about computer modelling. Its only been public since 2002 or thereabouts, so there's no reason for you to have found it.
In other cases the model is proprietary so people – even at universities – are careful about giving away millions of dollars of research funding, in much the same way as your bank isn't rushing to give its credit scoring algorithm to the general public. If you came to them with a couple of million in cash in a bag you can then have the source code.
But – going nuts and accepting that you have a point which isn't the case – even if the next 2 years are cooler than 1999 the trend is upwards. And its the trend that's the key thing.
Well, Adam, here is just one example (there countless others) of refusal to disclose, this time by our very own Prof. Phil Jones of the Met Office's Hadley Centre which, as I understand it, makes Jones a government employee and yet even FoI requests are met with ducking and diving and swerving. Now my question is very simple, Adam, as you would expect from a simple man like me, why is Jones hiding his research which has been produced at the state's expense? Those "millions of dollars" do not come from private corporations, it is public money and I'm a member of the public. Of course, the old-fashioned notion that irrespective of anything, a true scientist always offers up his or her findings in an open way for other scientists to examine is not applied in the world of climate 'science'. It used to be called the 'scientific method', didn't it? Now we have something more akin to Papal pronouncements!
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6203
And here's another example of the 'warmer's' version of the scientific method:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6160
And here's another:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5994
The Met Office runs as a trading fund.
To be precise, Neil:
"Legal Status and Ownership
The Met Office is a trading fund of the Ministry of Defence."
And from its ".gov.uk" website address I think ownership is clear:
http://www.shareholderexecutive.gov.uk/performanc…
But who cares, anyway? Prof. Jones has done his, er, 'research' at the tax-payers' expense and published the results. Why should he hide the means by which he reached his conclusions – they have no commercial value and he has been paid – probably overpaid – for his services?
"they have no commercial value"
Says who?
Says me, the sucker that was forced to pay for it!
Genius! I'll try that line with the OS. If I stamp my feet and make rasperry noises enough they'll have to send me a full set of Explorers.
What has the Ordnance Survey got to do with the price of eggs or this conversation?
Your tax pounds fund the OS. But if you want an OS map, you still have to pay for it. If you write to them asking for one for free so you can tell them it's rubbish based on your woo-woo amateur cartography skills, they'll tell you to get lost.
Similarly, your tax pounds fund the Met Office. But if you want a Met Office dataset, you still have to pay for it. If you write to them asking for one for free so you can tell them it's rubbish based on your woo-woo amateur meteorology skills, they'll tell you to get lost.
I trust the analogy is now clear?
*facepalm*
I see!
So the production of OS maps which has been ongoing for just over 200 years and which was originally created by the government for mainly military purposes but which today has a commercial by-product in the sale of maps which entails absolutely no new research, and whose results have no bearing on government policy or the future of the planet, is the same as a professor who indulges his curiosity in climate 'science' at my expense, propounds a theory based on that research which has enormous ramifications for the entire world, and yet refuses to allow anyone to look at his original codes – are one and the same thing!
Not for the first time Mr. Band, I cannot help wondering about the strange parallel world in which you exist.
Whoever decided that both the OS and the Met Office should operate under the same trading model clearly thought they were the same thing – and they were right.
The OS owns a huge database of geographical points. The Met Office owns a huge climate model. They both have to find ways to make money from their property. They won't make any money by giving it away for free.
(Sighs!)
Historical and regularly up-dated geographical data which is sold to others for commercial reasons is absolutely as different as can be from a university professor doing original research at tax-payers' expense and proposing a startling new scientific theory based on that research. Jones and/or the Met Office are *not* offering it for sale for the simple reason that it has *no* commercial value, they are sitting on it to ensure that no-one can check it.
"it has *no* commercial value"
Says who?
Says me but I will withdraw if you can find one person who has made a bid for Prof. Jones's research codes – or indeed, if it is for sale!
Why would you want the Ministry of Defence to sell – or worse, give away – its computer models and data?
Are you some kind of traitor?
Professor Phil Jones doesn't work for the Met Office. He works for the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. A press release which includes this fact is the first result in a google search for "phil jones hadley centre" or for "phil jones met office".
a commercial by-product in the sale of maps which entails absolutely no new research,
Yes, that's right, Duff, OS maps are never updated.
Jones and/or the Met Office are *not* offering it for sale for the simple reason that it has *no* commercial value,
Not true. You, Duff, for one, want to see it. You would presumably pay some amount of money (even if only a small one) to see it. Therefore it has commercial value.
David,
Are you really having some problems comprehending the idea that things have value? If so, lets add basic economics to the list of things that you come at from, in your delightful phrase, "complete neutrality".
As for Professor Phil Jones (PhD) we are talking about the editor of the journal Climate Change, a fellow of the Met Society in both the UK and the US, these aren't things you wake up one morning with. In 1997 he won the Outstanding Scientific Paper Award by the Environmental Research Laboratories for "A search for Human Influences on the Thermal Structure of the Atmosphere" which you can find in Nature, 382, pages 39-46 (1996). That's a pretty solid CV for saying things about climate change.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v382/n6586/a…
Even your central point doesn't hold much water – the basic raw data can be found here, on his website.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#da…
There's also a handy section which explains in laymans terms why your line of thinking is so wrong- headed. I leave it to you to do the required years of study to challenge it in any meaningful manner. That means that I look forward to hearing from you in, say, 2018 or thereabouts – assuming its 3 years to get a degree, 4 for a PhD, Maybe one more year for a Masters if required.
And, no, he's not going to hand over the computer models to just anyone. If you want to pay to play then you can have a chat to the University:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/business/ideas
Basically you tell them what you want, they say it'll cost a million quid, you turn up with a million quid and then its game on. Otherwise you're just begging, because this is stuff they sell.
"And, no, he’s not going to hand over the computer models to just anyone."
May I correct that slightly, I'm sure it was only a slip of the fingers that Alex failed to spot but it should read:
'And, no, he's not going to hand over the computer models to *anyone*!
The first question is – why not?
The second question is – what happened to open science?
And before you get all hoity-toity with me, Alex, perhaps you should remind yourself of the difference between raw data and computer models. We all know the ingredients for a cheese souffle but *it's what you do to them* that decides whether the result is a light, delicious dish or a stodgy, collapsed pud!
"he’s not going to hand over the computer models to *anyone*"
…other than the company that paid for them. Welcome to Economics 101 – we're doing Commerce today.
The usual weasel words from, well, a weasel:
"Commenting on this blog is conditional on three criteria; you need to be interesting, true, or at least funny. So far you're 0 for 3, and I am going to delete anything else you send."
Thus spake Alex the Yorkshire Canter who in similar vein to the 'scientists' he admires refuses to tell us which data set he prefers for accuracy, ground stations or satellites.
Once again I can only wonder what it is they have to hide? And why are they so "frit" – now where have I heard that word before …?
First Dave its Adam, not Alex. Lets add reading simple 4 letter English names to the list of your areas of "complete neutrality", along with basic science, computing, statistics, economics… I'd be rather worried at this stage. You did go to school, right?
As for me being a weasel, they're lovely animals with an immense reputation for cunning and guile and sexual potency – I believe the phrase is "shagging like demented weasels". Its rather sweet that you think of me that way, but I am married.
"Once again I can only wonder what it is they have to hide?"
And with that the Shark Was Jumped.
Apparently scientists are engaged in a huge conspiracy. Yes. That explains peoples unwillingness to give stuff that they'd like to be paid for. Obviously. It must be those nasty 9-foot tall blood drinking reptilian space-aliens that Mr Icke says are the Royal Family are in fact our nations senior scientists. Really.
And if you doubt the 9-foot tall aliens… it must be further evidence of a conspiracy.
Seriously. if you're thinking that scientists are good at hiding things, you've never met one. As a group scientists talk. Specifically scientists talk a lot about their subject, pretty much all day. In fact, in order to hide their super-secret-lizard-alien-conspiracy, scientists do everything that they aren't supposed to such as publish in internationally renowned journals like Nature.
And still no answer to the simple question – do you think that global temperatures are more accurately measured by surface stations or satellites?
Even a weasel one word "surface" or "satellite" answer would do. Then we could proceed. Although I find it strange that you ban from your site but 'speak' to me here.
Fucking hell's bells! This is turning into a Ronnie Barker routine about a man who can't distinguish words starting with the letter A…
Neil,
Heh. :-D
David,
"And still no answer to the simple question – do you think that global temperatures are more accurately measured by surface stations or satellites?"
Define accurately – it means specific things to a scientist. Much of our data comes from periods before satellites were even considered to be technically possible – we've come a long way since 1960.
Again, because you seem to be having trouble reading the information already provided to you – I suspect that is because its overly complex and uses big words – here is a (note a, not the) methodology:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/
"Even a weasel one word “surface” or “satellite” answer would do. Then we could proceed."
Aardvark. There you go. A one word answer. Quite why you think we're going to "proceed" is another matter – you appear to be unable to comprehend things that most people find basic.
"Although I find it strange that you ban from your site but ’speak’ to me here."
David you appear to be having the Adam / Alex problem again. Adam and Alex are two different words, and when the words that are used are different and happen to be names the people are usually different too. In my specific case I don't have a website. therefore have never banned anyone. On the other hand its possible to see Alex's point – why waste good electrons?