The BBC Attempts to Patch Up the Cracks – botches it, citing AGW could set off "negative feedback"

UPDATE2: “404 Page not found” now at the BBC for this video on Monday Feb16th. It seems they’ve pulled it. Too much “negative feedback” I suppose. Readers be on the alert for any retractions.

UPDATE: BBC Can’t even get their reporting correct. The reporter in this video report that accompanies the web article says that “The fear is that increased global warming could set off what’s called negative feedback…..” and that now we are in “scenarios unexplored by the models”.  No kidding, it’s that bad. For those of you that don’t know, some alarmists claim that “negative climate feedback is as real as the Easter Bunny, which is what makes this BBC factual error so hilarious.

Readers please let the BBC know that they have no idea what they are talking about. Just click here. – Anthony

bbc_agw_neg-feedback

Click above to watch the BBC video

Guest post by Steven Goddard

On Wednesday, normally stalwart UK global warming promoter – The Guardian, ran this remarkable headline, which was also covered here on WUWT:

‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts’

The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research facilities in the world, says recent “apocalyptic predictions” about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist. Such statements, however well-intentioned, distort the science and could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions, it says.

Undaunted and defiant, their comrades in global warming arms at the BBC, chose this as the lead story for Sunday morning:

Global warming ‘underestimated’

bbc_gw_underestimated

The severity of global warming over the next century will be much worse than previously believed, a leading climate scientist has warned.

….

“We are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we’ve considered seriously in climate policy,” he said.  Prof Field said the 2007 report, which predicted temperature rises between 1.1C and 6.4C over the next century, seriously underestimated the scale of the problem. “

File image of a polar bear in the Arctic

BBC employs the old standby icon - a polar bear

Prof Field said rising temperatures could thaw Arctic permafrost

One fatal flaw with the BBC story is that Chris Field is not a climate scientist, as they claimed.  He is actually a Professor of Biology in an Ecology Department. So  how does the BBC choose their headlines?  In matters of global warming, apparently the apocalyptic words of one American ecologist overrule those of the UK’s own government climate scientists at The Met Office.  Chris Field clearly does not have any credentials to be making the climate claims the BBC reported.  This looks more and more like a Shakespearean comedy every day.For them all together; which maintained so politic a state of evil that they will not admit any good part to intermingle with them.William Shakespeare – from ‘Much Ado About Nothing’

Advertisements

223 thoughts on “The BBC Attempts to Patch Up the Cracks – botches it, citing AGW could set off "negative feedback"

  1. Good grief, what will they come up with next?
    And what evidence does he base this claim on I have to wonder? Seems the BBC and our ABC here in Australia are trying to outdo each other.

  2. “Lord, what fools these mortals be!” –Puck, in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Nights Dream,
    Act 3, scene 2, 110–115

  3. Must be after some funding for the new financial year, after all it can’t be easy in these “credit crunch” times.

  4. Notice the second “LATEST SCIENCE” headline just to the right of the bear — “This year coolest since 2000”.
    The comedy must be intentional, right?

  5. “Speaking at the American Science conference in Chicago, Prof Field said fresh data showed greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2007 increased far more rapidly than expected. ”
    The Climatic responses to said increases are not relevant, the entire premise is based on CO2 concentration and the rate of increase and the projected effects. Using a simple linear extrapolation he makes these claims, and have we not heard enough of the lack of validity that has as a basis for predictive science?
    I believe it was addressed by the MET Office regarding proclamations of future catastrophe. Ah yes here it is…
    “Dr Peter Stott, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said a common misrepresentation was to take a few years data and extrapolate to what would happen if it continues”

  6. It’s too easy to write someone off because they don’t hold a degree in Climatology, an area that wasn’t even taught in colleges 10 years ago. According to the biography you linked, he was a lead author for the 4th assessment report of the IPCC and was co-chair of working group 2. On top of that, he works on computer modeling for carbon sources and carbon sinks. It’s this activity that makes him an “expert.”
    Having said that though, he claims that the IPCC underestimated the rate of change based on visible data between 2000 and 2007 which then was plugged into his model. So, he is diverging from the conclusions of the IPCC based on his computer model. The question then becomes, how good is his model? With anything guessing at a complex system over long periods of time, my guess is not good.
    As a quick example of difficulty of prediction over a period, look at the upcoming March Madness. There are 65 college teams all vying for the National Championship (64 games played). Chances of picking the winner is slim, while the chances of predicting a perfect bracket is astronomical. Yet, experts with computer models, former players, coaches and long time fans filled out over three million brackets on ESPN last year. Of that three million plus, only 2 people picked the final 16 teams correctly. So why is there surprise when people hear that one of the two people was Johnny Gilbert, 13 year old kid who has no cable TV?
    http://hogfootball.blogspot.com/2008/03/some-sweet-16-motivation.html (video link may not work, but it includes some text from the interview)
    There is a lot more information available with Past Stats, the Census, School and Conference history, TV/Internet/Newspaper information, that someone should be able to put together a long term model to effectively tell us who will the next 20 NCAA championships and show the route that they will take to achieve those championships. But funny things happen when the teams actually play the game. Climate is much more complex than March Madness, but unlike March Madness there are many more possible outcomes in Climate and many more opportunities to get it wrong. You could have 3 million “Models” and find only one or two actually get it right.

  7. In the MSM it’s not really about science anymore. It’s mostly about advocacy now.
    It will take an enormous tsunami of scientific reversal to change things – or perhaps another LIA.
    They’re more machine than man now – twisted and evil.

  8. Similar stories in the Australian Press and several other newspapers in Europe.
    It shows that this is a well coordinated PR campaign.
    Follow the connections and the money and you end up at a single office sending out the press releases.
    Prepare for much more BS for the next months because many Governments are in the final phase of introducing climate legislation.
    The more opposition the AGW/Climate doctrine becomes, the more crooked and bias articles will be published.
    Christopher Monckton will have his hands full debunking all this nonsense.

  9. so we learned:
    the bbc is misleading the public.
    the bbc is denying the met office hadley centre’s competence.

  10. I thought that what was meant by “lead story” was that this was the lead “science” story. But no, it really is the Lead Story on BBC’s home page.
    An interesting package deal, mixing environment in with science. So what we have here is a report about an advocacy speech by an ecologist to the AAAS gathering in Chicago. It is also interesting to note that the position of the AAAS is one that the governing body of the AAAS laid out without input or debate from its membership. Guess it was politically expedient to follow the line laid out by the politicians running the IPCC.
    And the beat goes on …

  11. John b,
    The role of biologists at the IPCC is to predict the biological impact of the various climate scenarios, not to predict the climate scenarios themselves. That is supposed to be the job of the climate scientists.
    If you go to the garden store, they may have experts who can tell you what types of plants grow well in your neighbourhood . That does not qualify them to tell you what the climate will be like in your garden in 100 years.

  12. From the related BBC TV news report:-
    “The fear is that increased global warming could set off what’s called negative feedback…..”
    You can’t expect the BBC to identify an expert when they so clearly know so little about the subject, compared to them everyone is an expert.

  13. Your will be done: this must my comfort be,
    Sun that warms you here shall shine on me;
    And those his golden beams to you here lent
    Shall point on me and gild my banishment.
    Richard II, Act I, W.S.

  14. This is also a lead story on the BBC on both the radio and television. I have sent off my usual complaint to the BBC about bias, but it won’t do any good.

  15. A completely unrelated comment:
    In the ugly world of venture capital, there’s a classic method scammers and bullshit artists use to keep ignorant start-ups on the line, for whatever purpose they may have.
    After promising an initial placement of whatever amount, say two million dollars here, once the start-up begins to ask where the hell is the money after a period of time, the scammers will come back, playing to greed and/or desperate hope, and say “we’ve been talking to our funding sources, and they’re so excited about your prospects, they want to invest 10 million dollars now, but it will take a little more time to put everything together.” This ratcheting up of supposed future funding in the face of growing evidence that it will never come through can continue through several rounds, as long as the victim is willing to believe it and let the increased stakes counter the plain reality in front of their eyes. At the point the start-up finally realizes they’re being taken advantage of, they’ve often shelled out tens of thousands of dollars in various expenses, or in the worst cases, irrevocably given part of their company or its assets to the con artists, or otherwise irreversibly damaged their company.
    I feel like in certain cases, the general form of this con could be done with fear rather than greed…

  16. Steven Goddard (23:04:14) said –
    “The role of biologists at the IPCC is to predict the biological impact of the various climate scenarios, not to predict the climate scenarios themselves. That is supposed to be the job of the climate scientists.”
    I think that most (say 85%) of the stuff I read/hear/see here in Australia in relation to alarming consequences are from scientists and others who simply take the AGW thing as a given, and procede from there.
    Some of them are just wackos. Many are seriously putting forward what they think. But the climate change part of it is assumed. E.g. Nicholas Stern in England, Ross Garnaut in Australia. And particularly the Governments who espouse the cause. All are convinced before they start that the AGW thing is real, unprecedented, immediate and dangerous.
    Unfortunately, they go beyond even what the IPCC says in relation to expected temperature increases, sea level increases etc.

  17. “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes — and ships — and sealing wax —
    Of cabbages — and kings —
    And why the sea is boiling hot —
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll

  18. Re Diogenes (23:18:31) :
    “From the related BBC TV news report:-
    “The fear is that increased global warming could set off what’s called negative feedback…..” ”
    Are you fair dinkum? Was this really said? Really?
    Bloody hell…!!!!

  19. Re my above post, here is the complaint I have sent to the BBC.
    I am complaining about the BBC’s coverage of global warming (aka climate change).
    The Guardian this week ran the following story:
    “‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts’
    Experts at Britain’s top climate research centre have launched a blistering attack on scientific colleagues and journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming. The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research facilities in the world, says recent “apocalyptic predictions” about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist.”
    Despite this story, the BBC ran the following headline as a major news item:
    “Global warming ‘underestimated'”
    In the news item Professor Field, an American biologist is quoted as follows:
    “The severity of global warming over the next century will be much worse than previously believed, a leading climate scientist has warned.”
    So the BBC journalist who wrote this article is biased in favour of apocalyptic warnings from a biologist and has ignored the Met Office warnings about journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming .
    It appears that he BBC prefers an American biologist compared to the “climate Scientists” of the Met Office when it comes to reporting on the future climate.
    I have never seen such blatant bias in all my life.
    The reporter and those responsible for making this a lead item in the BBC news should be removed from office immediately.

  20. Field’s claims raise some serious questions.
    1. Does the IPCC agree with him that last year’s report is incorrect?
    2. He claims “fresh data showed greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2007 increased far more rapidly than expected. Does that mean that he is claiming that the Mauna Loa CO2 data is incorrect?
    3. What new data does he have that supersedes the 2007 conclusions of the IPCC? Two years of lower temperatures and little or no change in sea level? No change in ocean temperatures? Record snow in the Northern hemisphere and record sea ice in the Antarctic? The end of the rapid melt in Greenland?
    The claims that climate has changed for the worse since 2007 are unsupportable. I always wondered what it was like to be a scientist in the time of Galileo. Now we are finding out what the ugly face of religion based science looks like.

  21. Thinking about it maybe the BBC tv report was accurate.
    “The fear is that increased global warming could set off what’s called negative feedback…..”
    If I worked for the BBC I would be very much affraid of that as it would make a whole decade of obsessional reporting obsolete at a stroke.

  22. This story is appearing in a bunch of places. But the headline refers to “global warming” being worse, while the article does not mention actual warming. The article only states there has been an unpredicted increase in CO2, while not mentioning measured temperatures.
    Does the BBC still use editors?

  23. ” Now we are finding out what the ugly face of religion based science looks like.”
    You are so right!
    What fascinates me are the people who really believe in the hype then either make no attempt to look at the facts or walk through the science with eyes wide shut.
    Unfortunately these opinion zombies also have a vote.

  24. Sandy (00:43:09) :
    ” Now we are finding out what the ugly face of religion based science looks like.”
    You are so right!
    What fascinates me are the people who really believe in the hype then either make no attempt to look at the facts or walk through the science with eyes wide shut.
    Unfortunately these opinion zombies also have a vote.

    No. It’s worse than that.
    Unfortunately these opinion zombies are actively, deliberately MISLEADING their voters.

  25. Given that we are now celebrating the birth 200 years ago of Charles Dawin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his publication of Origin of the Species, the relevance of which is still being debated by a significant sector of the community which hold certain beliefs regardless of the proofs put in front of them, I’m increasingly of the view that the climate debate is of a similar nature, and in 200 years we will still be debating the theoretical relevance of claims from all sides.
    What concerns me most is the enthusiastic support of AGW models by the established scientific magazines Scientific American, New Scientist, Nature, and by mainstream media like the BBC, NY Times etc etc. and to accept uncritically the pontifications of the IPCC, and to report with a blatant pro AGW bias.
    Perhaps it represents for the scientific magazines a desperate attempt to sensationalize to save their declining readership and sales in the face of the internet age, lets face it catastrophe sells almost as good as sex.
    .
    There has to be a reason for their unwillingness to examine the increasing evidence for holding a sceptical and critical view, and unquestioning acceptance of pro AGW papers, and destructive criticism of anything that challenges the status quo.
    Are we looking at a climate conspiracy of some sort between the media and left leaning governments, or is it a co-incidence of political expediency to use “climate change” as a mechanism for justifying increasing political intervention and control over the lives of people, to save us from the issues of “peak oil”
    Perhaps the failure to critically examine IPCC claims flows from the kind of staff employed by media and central government, and their advisors who seem to arrive young, educated from infancy to accept a “green ” ideology where to criticize or question, amounts to betrayal of the cause.
    Recent elections of right and center right governments in a number of countrys plus the economic downturn worldwide will focus minds for the bureaucrats like never before.
    As sceptics perhaps we should be more proactive in the political process and aggressively sew seeds of doubt in the minds of the public, and make a particular effort to engage the “climate” and science reporters to modify the sensationalist language used by them.
    Perhaps we should establish a fighting fund and sue the bastards for publishing false and misleading information.
    WUWT is doing a brilliant job in raising the standard of debate, I’ve no doubt that you are being read by the magazines and media I’ve complained about.
    interesting times

  26. LoL… I liked the shakespearean anecdote at the end… very apt.
    Much ado about nothing… to do with science. Is more like it though.

  27. Having listened to the BBC report and read the BBC link above, all I can muster is one very loud, Col. Potter of the MASH TV series, HORSEFEATHERS!
    What the heck is “negative feedback” mentioned by the BBC journalist?
    The principal reason why so little traction is made in countering the science is that it’s not science we are dealing with, but politics misusing science to further an agenda.
    Countering the science is simply a well constructed distraction to keep us usefully employed so as not to focus on the real issues – subjecting us to a quasi-tax on air.
    This is politics folks, not science.

  28. On the BBC news channel they are repeating this drivel every 30 minutes.
    On the BBC Radio 3 news every day this week there has been a different AGW doom-mongering item. I fear a war is being waged.
    What really distresses me is that there is never a balanced debate. Every little AGW piece of news is reported as fact with never any real analysis.
    I have complained to the BBC repeatedly over their lack of impartiality and balanced reporting, trying not to attack AGW directly, just asking for a balanced debate. All I ever get is the continued mantra that the weight of evidence is incontrovertible, the AGW theory is fact.
    We’re doomed, but not because of what they say, but because of the way they have completely lost the ability for independent investigative journalism. It’s not just AGW, but don’t get me started…
    The BBC are a laughing stock in the UK, they cannot be relied upon, as with much of the MSM, to report objectively and in full on any topic.
    Apologies for the rant.

  29. Stephen Goddard said –
    “The role of biologists at the IPCC is to predict the biological impact of the various climate scenarios, not to predict the climate scenarios themselves. That is supposed to be the job of the climate scientists.
    If you go to the garden store, they may have experts who can tell you what types of plants grow well in your neighbourhood . That does not qualify them to tell you what the climate will be like in your garden in 100 years.”

    I guess it really depends on his belief systems. If he feels that CO2 contributes to catastrophic warming and he is seeing more CO2 than his previous models were running, wouldn’t that give him enough reason to think that future temperatures would be higher?
    My questions for him would be?
    1) How is data from 2000-2007 considered “Fresh”? The IPCC report was delivered in 2008, it would seem that they had plenty of time to incorporate up to 8 year old data.
    2) Where are the inaccuracies in your model to have the delta in CO2?
    3) Taking that 7 years worth of “Fresh” data and compare it to global world wide temperature trends, why would CO2 rise and temperatures fall?
    For what it’s worth, I don’t want to see WUWT going down the road of questioning whether someone’s credentials are strong enough to have opinions on climatology. This entry is selling Chris Field’s short as it doesn’t mention his IPCC background, or his work with Carbon Sinks/Sources. I am sure that Anthony has critics criticize his background as a meteorologist because it’s so different from long term climate. Personally, I think that’s a crock.

  30. I heard this repeated, alarmist style, on Norwegian radio this morning. They just copy from the BBC. It is quite annoying, to say the least.
    I am hoping that the public will see the nonsense though, as this winter is much colder and with a lot of snow in and near the city of Oslo (1m+ at my home), where a large fraction of our population lives. But realistically, the it will take some time to sort this mess out.

  31. Can anyone help!!
    Regarding melting ice! I left this post a couple of topics back regarding the smoothing of the NSIDC sea ice growth record for 2009. I have been in touch with NSIDC but so far with no response.
    Last week for 2 days – I think 10th & 11th Feb, the graph showed a definate up spike – eg sudden growth in sea ice extent. This has now been smoothed away. It’s not the first time this has happened but the odd thing is that it is (by my reckoning) ALWAYS the up spikes that are smoothed downwards rather than the down spikes smoothed upwards. In the summer melt season, whenever sudden down spikes occur, I have to date not seen any smoothed upwards. It is possible I’ve missed them, but it seem to me that the incidence of smoothing up or down should be roughly equal.
    Anthony, I wondered whether this might be worth exploring further if it hasn’t happened already?
    Ben

  32. Carsten. If the Norwegian media simply copies the British media, this must annoy the hell out of you people there! You’ll be telling us you get our football next. Is Norway still the best place in the world to live – because that’s what we’re told in the UK?

  33. In the real world water vapor is the negitive feeback to heat.
    It would a step in the right direction if models were based on water vapor and not CO2.

  34. Steven Goddard (00:02:04) :
    Field’s claims raise some serious questions.
    1. Does the IPCC agree with him that last year’s report is incorrect?
    2. He claims “fresh data showed greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2007 increased far more rapidly than expected. Does that mean that he is claiming that the Mauna Loa CO2 data is incorrect?

    Chris field is one of the Stanford University Global-Warming-Alarm! team headed by Stephen Schneider, a lead IPCC author who says:
    “We need to get some broad based support,
    to capture the public’s imagination…
    So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
    make simplified, dramatic statements
    and make little mention of any doubts…
    Each of us has to decide what the right balance
    is between being effective and being honest.”
    They both flew to Oslo to The Goracle’s Nobel Prizegiving, I wonder what the carbon footprint of that little junket was.
    Be careful with this though Steven;
    Mauna Loa measures atmospheric co2 content, not changes in emissions.

  35. George Manbiot, never heard of him until he started to appear on the media telling us the world was going to end. Has a degree in zoology
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot
    He has a column in the Gaurdian
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/05/kingsnorthclimatecamp.climatechange
    David Bellamy, a popular and frequent contributer to natural history programmes when I was growing up. Has a degree in biology
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy
    “BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE”
    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
    The debate is over.

  36. I think the “negative feedback” B.S. is a semi deliberate mistake to muddy the waters.
    It will lead to all sorts of secondary debate about how “warming can cause cooling events”
    Get ready for the night-battle.

  37. This is all part of what is most likely an orchestrated campaign to raise the hysteria to a crescendo at Copenhagen.
    I think they will over-do it.

  38. “The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research facilities in the world, says recent “apocalyptic predictions” about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist.”
    Let the BBC at it i say, its like the old story of the boy who cried wolf. For years we are told that mild winters are here to stay then comes along this winter. Last year we were told that an ice free artic was just around the corner, it wont be a story again unless its actually ice free. Cold winters and ice in the artic do not contradict AGW theory however it does contradict the alarmist reporting.

  39. Since Prof Field is looking at the short term to predict the long term, then this what we know.
    The planet has witnessed 10 years of global cooling, whilst CO2 levels have steadily risen.
    According to polls climate change is now the lowest ranked priority.
    Climate alarmism by warmists is on the rise.
    Climate researchers at the Met Office now say that a common misrepresentation of climate change was to take a few years data and extrapolate to what would happen if it continues.
    It is clear that Prof Field is concerned that he is losing the public arguement. He has now resorted to misrepresenting the facts, the very act that climate scientists are now warning against.
    As for the BBC, it is clear that its environmental correspondents don’t know what they are taking about. “Negative feedback”, oh dear, oh dear. They’ll be telling us next Antarctica is warming up!

  40. Continuing the PR blitz, Hansen writes in the UK Guardian:
    …coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet.
    The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.
    But he leaves his MMGW argument open to simple rebuttal with the following statement:
    Several times in Earth’s history, rapid global warming occurred, apparently spurred by amplifying feedbacks.
    COP15 in Copenhagen isn’t until December 7-18 2009. Can this level of hysteria be maintained until then?

  41. Get a load of this Dr. Holdren kook:
    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/they-said-it
    Holdren, 1986:
    Global warming could cause the deaths of one billion people by 2020.
    Holdren, 1973
    Encouraged “a decline in fertility to well below replacement” in the United States because “280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many.”

  42. Steven Goddard (00:02:04) :
    “We need to get some broad based support,
    to capture the public’s imagination…
    So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
    make simplified, dramatic statements
    and make little mention of any doubts…
    Each of us has to decide what the right balance
    is between being effective and being honest.”
    Steven, this is a scary quote! What is your source and what is the context in which the statement is made?
    Ben

  43. “Next time Hansens scenarios A,B,C are considered, we’re going to have to say earth has been exceeding scenario A then. The fact that the current temperature is on and descending below the line for scenario C, we’re left with the conclusion these models have no predictive power whatsoever.”
    anonymous, no. 69
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5232

  44. The other extraordinary quote from the clip is this:-
    “Some scientists say the earth is warming because of natural climatic fluctuations not because of man’s influence.”
    For the BBC to admit that scientists hold this opinion is progress. Maybe a crisis of faith is emerging.

  45. The BBC is a disgrace.
    I can no longer watch the 6 o’clock BBC news.
    This article “Global warming ‘underestimated’ ” is par for the course.
    It is awful, yet there to alarm.
    “Prof Field said fresh data showed greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2007 increased far more rapidly than expected. ”
    I notice that no values are actually published so we are left to think that these emissions must be say 20 or 30 percent!!
    So how do we Brits complain?
    Well there is Ofcom. – Office of Communications who are there to:-
    “We are an independent organisation which regulates the UK’s broadcasting, telecommunications and wireless communications sectors. We also set and enforce rules on fair competition between companies in these industries.”
    Sounds good the very people to contact and complain under section 5.
    “Section 5: Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions”
    Yes I think we would question impartiality and accuracy in the BBC article and news broadcast.
    So what is the catch?
    http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/undue/
    The first paragraph says
    “(Relevant legislation includes, in particular, sections 319(2)(c) and (d), 319(8) and section 320 of the Communications Act 2003, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.)
    This section of the Code does not apply to BBC services funded by the licence fee or grant in aid, which are regulated on these matters by the BBC Trust. ”
    We cannot complain to Ofcom about the BBC’s accuracy!
    We need to contact the BBC Governors.
    So folks we just need to keep paying our BBC licence fee every year and grin!!
    As Meatloaf sings “I want my money back!”

  46. Perhaps I am missing the point of the comment about “negative feedback”, but surely they’d be fretting about positive feedback–i.e. “runaway” global warming?

  47. D Caldwell writes “In the MSM it’s not really about science anymore. It’s mostly about advocacy now.”
    Sorry. ALL the IPCC and pro-AGW reports have been advocacy; they never were scientific.

  48. Just got back from church & read this post. Amazing.
    Well done Anthony, a perfect quotation from a wonderful play, the BBC’s story really is “Much Ado about Nothing” as their scare stories usually are!
    I recommend that everyone who wants to complain to the auntie beeb about the standard of envirnomerntal reporting, at the same time advise them that they have also signed up to the new campaign to “PRIVATISE” the BBC. Now that will make them rapidly need the clean underwear!!!!! Trust me, they’re paid by the taxpayer, & nothing like privatisation scares a tax funded employee more. At the moment the BBC is ruling the roost, because of its unique position as a licence funded public body. They’ll soon change their tune when threatened with financial cut backs or worse for them, privatisation. The BBC really has gone beyond its brief & duty by forcing inaccuate & unbalanced science upon the public. It is appalling.
    REPLY: Steven Goddard wrote most of the post, see hiss title line. I only did the update. – Anthony

  49. What Field or the BBC meant was a “positive feedback”–i.e., one that reinforces the trend. The common error he or it fell into was to interpret “positive” as “good” and “negative” as bad.”
    Even if the permafrost is melting, the effect from released methane is unlikely to be catastrophic, since the permafrost melted during the Medieval Warm Period (as evidenced by Viking burials), with no grave consequences (right?).
    I agree with the commenter who said it’s not that crucial to be credentialed in climatology. Any scientifically trained person who focuses on the topic and reads the literature for a year or so should be able to think and opine intelligently about it. I believe that expertise in statistics and modeling/forecasting is probably the most important qualification, followed by literacy in the sociology of science. (In particular, in its historical reviews showing how fads (positive) and close-mindedness + shibboleths (negative) can pervade a field and lead it into prolonged error, and how “paradigms” can censor out awareness of contradictory evidence (anomalies).)

  50. The problem here is that you people that live outside the UK are relying on the legacy idea that the BBC is a respected and impartial news service.
    Those of us in the UK know it as a government propaganda tool and discount most of its output as government spin.

  51. @tallbloke (02:10:54) :
    The quote from Stephen Schneider is very telling.
    A July 2007 article on NPR documents factors in the rise of global warming in the public conciousness (including the thermally manipulated Hansen Congressional hearing).
    “the media is now covering the story more extensively and aggressively. Those few scientists voicing skepticism about global warming don’t receive the same air time they once did, when evidence of climate change was much weaker.
    Some psychologists attribute the burst of interest to a phenomenon called “the social amplification of risk.” It’s a theory that explains why we fear some things more than others. It explains why, for instance, countless swimmers stayed out of the ocean after seeing the 1975 movie Jaws, even though, statistically you are 80 times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a shark.
    The social amplification of risk also explains why the 2004 movie The Day After Tomorrow raised concerns about global warming, even though the movie was scientifically (not to mention artistically) flawed.”
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11787222
    Love the last line “a favorite saying of environmentalists, “Nature bats last.””

  52. Barry Foster (02:04:41) :
    Carsten. If the Norwegian media simply copies the British media, this must annoy the hell out of you people there! You’ll be telling us you get our football next. Is Norway still the best place in the world to live – because that’s what we’re told in the UK?

    Unfortunately, it doesn’t annoy enough people yet.
    For example, our minister of the environment, Erik Solheim, is trying to scare the public the best he can with his alarmism, and he seems to be getting away with it so far. As the weather here got rather chilly recently (that means normal), he now claims the fires in Australia are due to global warming:
    ‘Connects fires to climate change’
    “Environmental minister Erik Solheim and australian firemen hope the disaster will be a wake-up signal in climate negotiations”.
    http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/02/13/nyheter/miljo/brann/4837811/
    I wonder if australian firemen agree with that assertion.
    Is it BBC who is telling you Norway is the best place to live? Well, we do like to think that. But we do indeed have your football. Just ask my 11 year old son.

  53. Now that the U S Congress has passed the most massive redistrubution of wealth in history we will see more and more of these scare stories as everyone starts to grab for their share of the money. Years ago I was friendly with a blood research scientist at Yale U. in New Haven Ct who once told me this secret, “Sometimes you must contradict yourself in order to justify additional funding for more research”.
    And while I am not saying that this is a common practice, I have always been sceptical of any researchers “latest findings” since.

  54. Well if good old Auntie Beeb admitted that it was all a con then the various presenters – because they aren’t journalists anymore – wouldn’t be able to jet off – oh the irony – to various parts of the world at the tax payers expense to show us the rising sea level in various beautiful, sunny beach resorts, or get trips of a lifetime to the poles.

  55. OMG, two weeks ago I just managed to get that “12 days of global warming” song out of my head and thanks (NOT) to your showing the polar bear photo it is back again!
    :-\

  56. Running climate models does not make you a climate scientist. That claim is analogous to saying that President Obama use of a Blackberry makes him an electrical engineer.
    If you want to become a BBC “climate scientist,” you can download key portions of a climate model here.
    http://rtweb.aer.com/rrtm_frame.html
    Running the model and tweaking the input files will make you qualified to be the subject of the BBC’s lead story tomorrow, as long as claim Armageddon.
    President Carter used to call himself a “nuculur engineer” because he served in the Navy on a nuclear submarine.

  57. Actually, GHG numbers are slightly below the IPCC’s scenario right now.
    The A1B scenario in which GHG concentrations continue the existing trends into the future and which leads to the commonly quoted +3.0C temperatures by 2100 can be seen here.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/GHGs.IPCC.A1B.txt
    CO2 is about 1 ppm behind. Methane is 40 ppb behind (recent uptick makes it hard to tell). N2O is about 25 ppb behind.
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2008.fig2.png
    So generally, the GHG growth rates are in fact lower than projected by the IPCC. Hansen’s recent 2008 temperature summary report even acknowledged this fact.

  58. It’s not the Negative Feedback I’m worried about, it’s that – gulp – according to Dr James Henson writing in today’s Observer: “Coal-Fired power stations are death factories”:

  59. During the bitter cold this winter in the UK, there was almost no wind and the sun was too low in the sky to be useful for solar power. If not for the “evil” coal burning power plants, many thousands would have frozen or starved to death – and the economy would have gone into complete collapse.
    The BBC is a bit out of touch with reality.
    “Only two things are infinite – the universe and human stupidity. And I’m not so sure about the former.”
    Albert Einstein

  60. Slightly O/T (or is it?) but Nassim Taleb, author of “Black Swan’ (who correctly foresaw the economic debacle) put together in that work a group of mental ‘follies’ which end up in slanted thinking and distorted conclusions:
    1.Confirmation bias (a tendency to reaffirm beliefs, rather than contradict them)
    2.Narrative fallacy (a weakness for compelling stories)
    3.Silent evidence (a failure to account for what we don’t see)
    4.Ludic fallacy (a willingness to oversimplify, or take games/models too seriously)
    5.Epistemic arrogance (a habit of overestimating our knowledge and underestimating our ignorance).
    Hmmm, now what does that remind me of?

  61. Roger Knight,
    You believe that someone who works for the IPCC and is not even a climate scientist, is qualified to go to the press and unilaterally say that the IPCC climate predictions are incorrect?
    That would imply that the IPCC process, documentation, accountability and standards are worthless. He may have his own opinion, but that hardly qualifies him to speak for the body of climatologists.
    In my last piece I asked the question Whom could they (The Met Office) be referring to in this passage: “scientific colleagues and journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming?”
    Now we know.

  62. As ever more scientist and climatologists, some of whom worked for the IPPC, turn away from MMGW the claims of the believers grew ever more shrill and hysterical.
    The question is, however, why on earth are reports of this nature made public. They emanate from one person, no evidence or peer review is supplied yet this report appears in most of the MSM.
    Why has there been no report, that I am aware of, that Russia has recently released detailed analysis of ice cores dating back 430000 years. These show conclusively that an ice age occurs every 12000 years and that subsequent heating is followed by an increase in CO2 800 years later. The graph is reproduced in Wikipedia under

  63. Barbara,
    Completely OT, but related to your post about the “economic debacle.” One very large company I work for was having it’s most profitable year ever in 2008, until two weeks after the US political conventions – when there was a huge run on the money markets.
    Food for thought.

  64. The AGW cycle was particularly brutal yesterday, I saw several articles which claimed warming was extending beyond even climate model predictions. I made my own prediction several months ago, a cooler planet wouldn’t slow the rhetoric, it will actually increase it. Not too big a stretch I realize but it seems to be coming true.
    —-
    I invited an engineer to do a guest post on the Air Vent regarding the AWS reconstruction of Antarctica. The original version of the Nature paper relies heavily on the peninsula stations which are grouped next to each other. By simply re-gridding the data according to area and rerunning the calculations the slope of the result changed dramatically.
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/aws-gridded-reconstruction/

  65. The BBC is not alone, FoxNews.com has a picture of a red sunset over smoke stacks for their report on an increasing rate of CO2.

  66. The answer to the question of why is sinple, if it fits the template, print it, if not, it never happened. So the PRAVDA media does their job, prints it as written.
    The hysteria and lies are becoming a web so tangled, that no one can figure it out anymore, including the ones generating the hysteria and lies.
    What we know about Earth’s climate, you could write a book. What we don’t know would fill a library.

  67. Paulus (05:47:37),
    Thanx for that link to James Hansen’s astonishing rant. Hansen is becoming more and more shrill of late, and his apologist propaganda for China’s government gives them a free pass to continue building their coal-fired power plants.
    China is currently building an average of 1 – 2 new coal burning power plants per week, and the Chinese government has announced that they intend to continue at this frenetic pace through at least 2024. But Hansen says:

    The three countries most responsible, per capita, for filling the air with carbon dioxide from fossil fuels are the UK, the US and Germany, in that order.

    China has surpassed every other country in emissions, but by saying “per capita,” Hansen makes it appear that China is not a problem in this regard, when the facts plainly contradict him. What has China given to James Hansen to let them off the hook with his word games?
    Emissions by the U.S. have increased by only 9% over the past 17 years since most of the world signed the Kyoto Protocol; that is a much smaller increase than any other country. The U.S. and Great Britain emit much less CO2 than most of the countries that signed Kyoto, and less than one-fifth the rate of China’s emissions. Germany is also building dozens of new coal-fired power plants. They buy carbon offset indulgences and pass the cost on to their utility rate-payers, which results in an extremely high tax on German workers, but it does nothing whatever to reduce CO2 emissions.
    So why does James Hansen give the Chinese government a totally free pass? Why is Hansen the Chinese government’s apologist? There is a reason for everything. Is James Hansen bought and paid for?
    Hansen has taken upwards of a million dollars [that we know of] from “green” organizations and foundations that say exactly the same thing that Hansen is saying in this article. It appears that Hansen is for sale, and that he is using his prestigious position as head of NASA/GISS to personally enrich himself.
    Maybe James Hansen truly believes what he says. If so, in order to deflect the inevitable charges of hypocrisy, he should resign from government employment, and speak out as a private citizen. IMHO, the reason he doesn’t do the right thing can be traced to his lust for money and prestige.

  68. Perhaps the AGW rabble thinks that a good offense is better than a defense.
    So how much of the ramp up in news releases and comments is an attempt to preempt the upcoming conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute and any media publicity that will be generated by the International Conference on Climate Change in March.

  69. Check out right side of the article where there is another article with a smoking factory drawing labeled:
    “CLIMATE CHANGE
    Animated guide: Find out how the greenhouse effect works and more… ”
    It shows the “greenhouse effect” but fails to mention water vapor, shows only an animated CO2 molecule, implies CO2 and methane absorb most of the IR that is coming from the surface and indicates a linear progression of IR absorbtion by CO2.
    It is a bold faced lie of omission and tantamount to fraud but probably sounds logical to the man on the street.

  70. Quote from Climate Audit:
    ““Next time Hansens scenarios A,B,C are considered, we’re going to have to say earth has been exceeding scenario A then. The fact that the current temperature is on and descending below the line for scenario C, we’re left with the conclusion these models have no predictive power whatsoever.”
    anonymous, no. 69
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5232

  71. Again, if greenhouse gases are exploding, then why is the temperature dropping?
    What does that say about the models?

  72. “..Field is an acknowledged expert.”
    The BBC could have talked at least for a few seconds with the sources that say the earth is cooling. But they spend 100% of their reporting time on those like Field. What are the sources that say the earth is cooling? They’re called thermometers.
    “Professor of Biology in an Ecology Department.”
    It’s not just an ecology department, but it’s a “Global” ecology department.
    He is a biologist, not a climatologist. The BBC thinks a biologist in a “global” ecology department, and not a climatologist, is an expert in climate. The Baby Boomer/ Hippie generation, for the most part, controls the media. To a hippie the word “ecology” carries more weight than the word “climatology”. Throw in a picture of a polar bear and it seals the deal.
    Chris Field’s CV at this link :
    http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/fieldlab/CHRIS/CFcv2pg_10-27-08.pdf
    So it looks like Chris Field Is just another alarmist from Stanford.
    If the BBC wanted to talk to an expert why didn’t they talk to Richard Lindzen?
    His CV at this link :
    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/CV.pdf

  73. Since lots of folks are giving their cultural quotes, here’s one of my faves… dedicated to the believers in the AGW/CO2 conjecture [from The Wizard of Oz]:

    I could while away the hours
    Conferrin’ with the flowers
    Consultin’ with the rain…
    And my head I’d be scratchin’
    While my thoughts were busy hatchin’
    If I only had a clue!
    I would not be just a nuffin’
    My head all full of stuffin’
    My heart all full of pain…
    I would dance and be merry
    Life would be a ding-a-derry
    If I only had a clue!

  74. Let me get this straight, WUWT is complaining that a non-climate scientist featured in the media makes unsubstantiated claims that go against the consensus view of the IPCC?

  75. Smokey (05:56:23) :
    It’s very easy to send a comment to the BBC about their climate confusion. Just click here.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3990000/newsid_3993900/3993909.stm

    Thanks Smokey, done.
    =========================================
    I see the global warming alarm piece today emanates from a single american IPCC scientist (whose expertise is biology not climate), at a time when lobbying in the USA for climate legislation is intense.
    Yet the BBC gives no airtime to the head of the climate change unit at the UK met office who warns against overstated predictions of climate chaos.
    When is the BBC going to report climate issues in a balanced and unbiased way?
    Our TV license is due, and the TV is going on ebay. I will not pay to support a biased organisation.
    ========================================

  76. Ben – your question from above
    http://www.solopassion.com/node/5841
    Here Professor Stephen H. Schneider defends the statement and provides the full quote and context.
    “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the
    scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole
    truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the
    doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we
    are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people
    we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context
    translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially
    disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting
    loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make
    simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts
    we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves
    in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the
    right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that
    means being both.”
    He seems to think that calling it a “double ethical bind” absolves him and that he provides an acceptable context that should make us all go “Oooh so he’s torn between being a competent and objective scientist and the ‘need’ to sensationalise and lie for the good of humanity, that’s all right then”.
    Congratulations Professor Schneider, your hand-wringing doubts over ethics and integrity vs your perceived ‘greater good’ wins you SOLO’s Villain of the Day award.
    **********

  77. mal, (4:19:28) that is because, quoting myself from Arctic sea ice thread
    last summer on Climate Audit, so consider it copyrighted…LOL:
    …it like so many polar bears nowadays… lived on …. 10, Drowning Street
    [I myself live on a street nr 10 in Solna (close to Stockholm, Sweden), but
    being no polar bear…]
    And some news from SMHI, Väder och Vatten Nr 13 Väderåret 2008 [needs no translation for you?!]
    Warmest years since 1901 [out of selection of 100 stations, not very many
    really rural, but you use what you get…]
    1. 1934…..18 stations/%
    2. 1990…..17 stations/%
    3. 2000…..17 stations/% [I suppose UHI makes earlier year “warmer”]
    4. 1938…..14 stations/%
    5. 2006…..14 stations/% [same commentary as 3.]
    I keep this cliff-hanging…Next time the absolute measured temps, summed up…

  78. The earth atmosphere is 5 quadrillion metric tons so 10 billion metric tons is about .000000001% of the atmosphere’s total mass. Is that correct? Does Carbon dioxide not mix with the entire mass of atmospheric particles? I’m not sure how 10 years of this can have a significant effect. On a side note, I like to envision a piece of paper with 10000 dots on it. Make 4 of them red to represent CO2. The caption “Everything still OK”. Make 2 more red in a new Image. This it’s caption: We Are Doomed.

  79. I believe the IPCC estimate of increased CO2 emissions were all modeled emission rates starting at year 2000 when the models had no future measures beyond that year, just estimates, some of which were reduced rates (scenarios ABC) due to installed reduction programs along side modeled, but assumed to be a combination of natural and unmitigated anthropogenic CO2 increases. The actual measured (and I think questionable) rate of CO2 increase has been in-between the top 3 unmitigated, unregulated modeled rates of increase. Therefore, of the emission rates modeled, the average of the models with starting gate at hear 2000 is below what is currently the case. I believe this is where the statement “underestimated” comes from.
    The problem with the models that now arises is just how much of a lag is there between CO2 increase and temperature? For sure there is no immediate connection, as that has already been ruled out by the simple time stamped discrepancy between measured (and don’t forget questionable) CO2 levels and measured (and don’t forget questionable) global temperatures. I am imagining that the IPCC discussion now is WHEN will temperatures start to go up. The part of the mathematical models that connects CO2 to temperature will now have to be adjusted to include a “variable” lag factor that will have to have several ranges with concommittent new model projections, not a cause and effect non-variable temperature response factor.
    My conclusion: The original IPCC models are now obsolete and useless for two reasons. 1. CO2 emission rates are not what was projected, and 2. Temperatures are not what was projected.

  80. I’ve complained before on the BBC website. Got nowhere. It’s a vast organisation with, I would guess, millions of complaints. Seemed to me that the folks who stood outside with placards, re the charity raising cash for the Palastinians, got no where either. Probably the only way, maybe, is to go to the regulatory body responsible or Your MP. Good luck. Myself, I turn it off and wait patiently for the day…. And, I know there are people inside the organisation that share my views on AGWers and lambast their colleagues about it.

  81. What amazes me is that Hansen’s credibility wasn’t shot away ages ago..
    http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/09/global_warmer_h.html
    WRT the original article, I have just sent this to the Beeb. A bit petulant, I know, but it made me feel better.
    “If Chris Field really was a climate scientist (he isn’t, he’s a biologist) he might know that what he was trying to describe is positive feedback, not negative. This is a schoolboy howler and if the BBC wasn’t run by Arts graduates, an editor might have spared Prof. Field’s blushes.
    Do stop scaremongering – you’re supposed to be unbiased!”

  82. Just to clarify the 10 billion tons of CO2 released a year figure comes from the alarmist article posted by TerryBixler.

  83. Why is it with these climate “scientists” that whenever they admit they were wrong, that the situation is always WORSE than they thought? You never hear them say, “oops, our models were wrong. It’s actually not as bad as we thought.”

  84. The feedback they are talking about is the melting of ice and consequent sea desalinization?, “The day after tomorrow” scenario? or they are thinking and planning a new one. Because reality ,credit crisis and low oil prices very probably will mean the end of their pleasant lives.

  85. The BBC and ABC are both publicly funded organizations. Because they feed of the taxation of the populace, they are only answerable to the government.
    Small wonder that they would advocate higher taxes. By doing the governments bidding they would stand to profit from any tax windfall extracted from the long suffering public.
    Bob Brown (UK PM) has wrecked the UK economy and threatened to introduce an even more vicious consumption tax on the people. He backed down but only when civil unrest began to show in the polls.
    Now you have Kevin Rudd (Aust PM) going down the same path. He vehemently apposed the GST (consumption tax) on the grounds that it was inequitable. Yet here he is proposing a tax on every thing you consume.
    All in the name of saving the planet.
    Never underestimate the vigor of a politician bent on bureaucratic empire building and the pot of gold it needs to extract from working people to achieve such a goal.
    What better way to build such an insidious regime than to play on the tragedy that struck Victoria. It was pandering to the greens and the cowardice or complacency of the people and the local government to stand up to these moral philosophers that was the real problem
    Don’t bother writing to the BBC or ABC. Next time you have a local or national vote, just get off your lazy butts and do it. Your lives may depend on it.
    Yea ok, I’ll get snipped but I feel better for saying it.

  86. My favorite story that speaks volumes about AGW is Alice in Wonderland. Chasing the rabbit is what this is all about. The political motivation behind that story is as interesting as the story itself. Every character has a political equal, every line a political purpose. Much like the Wizard of Oz and Dr. Seuss “The Butter Battle Book”.

  87. Manfred (22:19:25) :
    “so we learned:
    the bbc is misleading the public.
    the bbc is denying the met office hadley centre’s competence”.
    What we have learned is:
    1. The UN IPCC is misleading the Governments and the Public
    2. The Britisch Government is misleading the public
    3. MetOffice is misleading the public and training IPCC members, Politicians, Government Officials etc. to mislead the public and how to handle skeptical points of view.
    The BBC is misleading the public by publishing all the garbage produced by people who were probably trained by MetOffice.
    What we know:
    1. We know that the Government of Gordon Brown has made a commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% which is a virtual shut down of the British Economy (if they still have any)
    2. As a consequence of their policies Britain has the highest (consumer) energy prices in Europe which already has caused a new phenomenon called “fuel poverty”.
    http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/Cold-weather-deaths-double-warn-campaigners/article-686410-detail/article.html
    3. We now know that Green Policies Kill PEOPLE and when Governments adapt Green Policies, Governments Kill People.
    4. Similar policies will be introduced World Wide.
    There are people who promote the opinion that “KILLING PEOPLE IS THE OBJECTIVE OF GREEN POLICIES IN THE FIRST PLACE”
    http://green-agenda.com

  88. Shakespearean Comedy? Would that it were. Methinks this quotation from a Shakesperean tragedy is more appropriate;
    “And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: man made climate change is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing..”
    Paraphrased from part of a certain Scottish play.

  89. One thing the alarmists concerned about carbon emissions don’t discuss is that melting of glaciers, ice and permafrost should allow more robust vegetation to develop in those places. The new vegetation will remove carbon from the air.

  90. The most outrageous part of this clip is when the announcer says that “increasing temperatures could ignite the tropical rainforest. ” Yes, Ignite!
    Incredibilible…

  91. I was most amused by the reporter saying that “higher heat would ignite the tropical rainforest” Do we now have “spontaneous rainforest combustion” to worry about. I haven’t heard a good spontaneous human combustion story in about 15 years. It’s good to know the BBC is exposing totally new phenomena.
    Where do they get these clowns!

  92. Anthony,
    I think you were absolutely right ridiculing the BBC for calling “negative feedback” a potentially dangerous development. However, you spoiled the effect by linking to an article calling negative feedback as real as the Easter Bunnny. The linked article is absolute garbage. Feedback is merely a shorthand expression for the interaction between the output – in case of the climate, the temperature – and the input – all the factors influencing it. There are only three possibilities. The feedback is negative, which means the output is dampening the effects of the inputs, the feedback is positive which means that the output is re-inforcing the effects of the inputs and there is no feedback. In the case of the climate, which is an extremely complex chaotic system, we can ignore the last possibility as a statistical impossibility. The author of the linked article argues that since we have seen large swing in temperature in the past this serves as a proof that there is no negative feedback. The only thing that the author proved that he is totally ignorant about feedbacks. Negative feedback does not impede change, it merely dampens it. As an example, negative feedback can be compared to a parachute. People jumping out of an airplane both with and without a parachute will hit the ground. The difference in how they hit the ground does not have to be spelled out, especially for the readers of this blog.

  93. D. King….Doesn’t the article end with Mars and Cadbury forecasting a bright future for chocolate due to newly developed farming practices and hybridization? I like this article as an example of the spirit of positive adaptation. Why do things have to stay just as they are ? Climate never will.
    Are we doing everything perfectly now?

  94. The BBC no longer has anyone who knows any science.
    Just a bunch of ecoactivists. They used to have a good science correspondent Dr David Whitehouse – he is now a sceptic like Dr David Bellamy, and therefore banished.

  95. “One fatal flaw with the BBC story is that Chris Field is not a climate scientist, as they claimed. ”
    —————————–
    Not being a climate scientist has not been an impediment to A. Hoax Gore.

  96. Chocolate Beer. Me thinks I must have this recipe. And sorry my good friends, but if the cocoa plant is at risk, then I am an avowed AGW extremist who will don shield and sword to fight the denialist hordes. I can just see it now, Saint Pam of Chocolate. I could wear that title well. And me Irish blood filled with the bravado born of chocolate beer would make me a fearless enemy.

  97. I to have complained to the BBC about bias in climate change reporting .
    I would love to see the BBC do a programme ” Climate Skeptics on Trial”, where climate skeptics and AGW promoters both get an equal chance to state thier case , and then both a crossed examined by counsel. A lay panel / audience then vote on the issue. Bearing in mind the Trillions of $ that are going to be spent, if they are so sure of their case what have they got to lose? A proper 3 hour special– this is such an important subject it deserves this
    The wont do it however because they know they would lose

  98. Let me get this straight, Boris now thinks it’s OK for a non-climate scientist to be featured in the media making unsubstantiated claims that go against the consensus view of the IPCC?

  99. I was digging around for facts concerning the latest attack on our food supply, bills HR 814 and HR 875, click and what do I find but the guy behind the “global Warming” media blitz!
    “He was also a strategic consultant to the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council on its multi-year campaign on global warming……NGO board memberships include the American Museum of Natural History, the National Endowment for Democracy, The Africa-America Institute, the Citizens Committee for New York City, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Refugees International…….Republican pollster Frank Luntz says “Stan Greenberg scares the hell out of me. He doesn’t just have a finger on the people’s pulse; he’s got an IV injected into it.” click
    From reviews of his latest book:
    The fascinating “war room” memoir of a political pollster and how he helped forge the agendas of five high-profile heads of state.
    “As a hired gun strategist, Greenberg—a seasoned pollster and political consultant—has seen it all. In his memoir, he recounts his work with President Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Bolivian president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, and South African president Nelson Mandela. [also Al Gore] Through his experiences aiding the leaders in pushing their visions for better and clearer domestic and international policies, Greenberg offers an insightful examination of leadership, democracy, and the bridge between candidate and constituency. This captivating tale of political battlegrounds provides an inside look at some of the greatest international leaders of our time from the man who stood directly beside them.”
    click
    This guy is seriously bad news. He was responsible for the Bolivia fiasco featured in the documentary “Our Brand is Crisis” He got a real turkey elected who was shortly there after ousted through riots and rebellion.

  100. What! The omniscient GCM’s did not anticipate the increasingly massive coal-fired CO2 emissions from India and China – when the Kyoto Protocols specifically excuded these Countries from having to follow them – probably because the ipcc does not even believe its own mechanism of AGW and its catastrophe?
    I’m shocked!/sarc

  101. I’m not going to bother reading the other comments, but I will say this:
    Look up the history of global climate change. In the beginning it was called “Global Cooling”, which doesn’t sound that alarming. “Global Warming” however sounds a bit more alarmist. “Global Climate Change” however means that the “normal” climates associated with Earth and its various areas, will change. Climate change also means we can have drastically cooler years followed by extremely warm years. Weather fluctuates, and nothing modern science has come up with can accurately tell anything. Remember that science is built off of educated guesses. If anything our climate has changed over the last few years, if we’re aware of it we can do something.
    How about we stop bitching and actually pay attention to things? We all know things are happening with our environment, so stop harking on facts when a small part gets wrong.
    PS: How much of what the news tells us is skewed? Can anyone report without a bias?

  102. In the context of Chris Fields alarmism I thought WUWT readers might enjoy some of the quotes I have built up that were intended to be used in such circumstances.
    “H.L.Mencken wrote:The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
    “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives L Tolstoy”
    “Issac Asimov joined Mensa, and had this to say about it: “Furthermore, I became uncomfortably aware that Mensans, however high their paper IQ might be, were likely to be as irrational as anybody else.”
    “Ecclesiastes 1:9] What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”
    “Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument. The heated mind resents the chill touch and relentless scrutiny of logic.” William E. Gladstone”
    “Max Planck said: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
    “As Thomas Kuhn put it in The Road Since Structure: “… – individuals committed to one interpretation or another sometimes defended their viewpoint in ways that violated their professed canons of professional behaviour. I am not thinking primarily of fraud, which was relatively rare. But failure to acknowledge contrary findings, the substitution of personal innuendo for argument, and other techniques of the sort were not. Controversy about scientific matters sometimes looked much like a cat fight.”
    “Read the treatise by Thomas Kuhn on “paradigms” and how these influence scientists, often making it difficult or even impossible for them to think “outside the box” of the accepted paradigm.”
    “Read the book “The Black Swan”, by Nassim Taleb, which points out why “experts” in a field are more likely to make incorrect predictions for the future in their field than non-experts, and why it is not so important “what an expert knows” as it is “what he/she does not know”.
    “The US baseball player, coach and philosopher, Yogi Berra, “It is rough to make predictions, especially about the future”. And his later quotation, applicable to climate scientists today (now that temperatures are not rising as they predicted), “The future ain’t what it used to be.”
    “Only two things are infinite – the universe and human stupidity. And I’m not so sure about the former.” Albert Einstein”
    “Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    When first we practise to deceive!” Sir Walter Scott”
    “Chris field is one of the Stanford University Global-Warming-Alarm! team headed by Stephen Schneider, a lead IPCC author who says:
    http://www.solopassion.com/node/5841
    On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the
    scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole
    truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the
    doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we
    are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people
    we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context
    translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially
    disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting
    loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make
    simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts
    we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves
    in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the
    right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that
    means being both.”
    Thanks to those on this blog and many others for these. Anyone got any more I can add?
    TonyB

  103. Steven Goddard:
    “President Carter used to call himself a “nuculur engineer” because he served in the Navy on a nuclear submarine.”
    Actually, that’s not a good analogy.
    Carter’s faux pas was to refer to himself as a “scientist”.
    Anyone who went through the schooling required of a nuclear officer in Rickover’s Navy was entitled to call himself an engineer.

  104. Thanks to those on this blog and many others for these. Anyone got any more I can add?
    TonyB
    I was once taught science by a very clever professor, who used to say “the more you know, the more you realise you don’t know!”
    Ben

  105. TonyB: “…Anyone got any more I can add?”
    Here are a few of my favorites:
    ”The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.”
    ~H.L. Mencken
    “Tell a lie often enough and you’ll come to believe anything…It’s funny, but it is true.”
    ~Napoleon Hill
    “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability. ~Dr. Roy Spencer
    “It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.”
    ~William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded”.
    ~ President Dwight Eisenhower
    In holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
    ~ President Dwight Eisenhower
    “I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet I assure others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means — except by getting off his back.”
    ~ Leo Tolstoy

  106. Still trying to discover why up spikes are adjusted down the way while down spikes don’t seem to be adjusted by NSIDC in their sea ice daily analysis. Please see my earlier post.
    Anyone know anything about this?
    Thanks to all those contributing to the Stephen Schneider scary quote. I guess if you really believe you’re on a mission to save the world from impending doom, a little colouring of the truth is inevitable!!
    Ben
    Ben

  107. Ben and Smokey
    Thanks for those extra ones.
    Here is another;
    “The medieval warm period is an outdated concept Dr Michael Mann”
    tonyB

  108. J.Peden said “What! The omniscient GCM’s did not anticipate the increasingly massive coal-fired CO2 emissions from India and China – when the Kyoto Protocols specifically excuded these Countries from having to follow them – probably because the ipcc does not even believe its own mechanism of AGW and its catastrophe?”
    Where do you think the Transnational Corporations are moving their factories to? India and China. Carbon credits go to BUILD those factories and The Trans Nationals do not want regulations and high wages getting in the way of profit. The World Trade Organization’s “Agreement on AG” and the World Bank, IMF “Structural Adjustment Policies” strips land from farmers in the EU, USA Canada and third world countries, so they can “vertically integrate” food production to sell to China.
    Is there anything significant that happened between the 1995 World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Agriculture and 2002 to spur Big Ag into trying to drive farmers off their land in the USA? click
    “With China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in December 2001, U.S. agricultural interests were hopeful that longstanding barriers to trade with that vast and growing market would begin to fall…With a 1.2 billion population, rising incomes, and a growing middle class, China has enormous potential as a market for U.S. food and agricultural products….” quoted straight from a Congressional Research Service Report: Agriculture: U.S.-China Trade Issues, October 16, 2002 click
    MGW has nothing to do with Science and everything to do with GREED. Al Gore also has his sticky fingers in getting rid of American farmers.
    “At a recent ceremony at the White House, Vice President and presidential candidate Al Gore let slip what many have long believed was his real intention as regards to U.S. agriculture.
    “While presenting a national award to a Colorado FFA member, Gore asked the student what his/her life plans were. Upon hearing that the FFA member wanted to continue on in production agriculture, Gore reportedly replied that the young person should develop other plans…” Ag Journal, Billings, Montana: My Ag Extension Service Agent was there and heard Gore make this statement. The agent was blisteringly angry that politicos had plans to get rid of American farmers.
    They one thing I do not understand is if the EU, USA and Canada are reduced to third world status and taxed to death, who is going to buy their products? India and China??

  109. By heck,!!!!!
    It is a report!!!! that is all:
    “Speaking at the American Science conference in Chicago, Prof Field said fresh data showed greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2007 increased far more rapidly than expected. ”
    It is not the BBC speaking, they are reporting an event.
    Perhaps if the “everything is wonderful” group were to actually post some research of their own (rather than pulling apart others work which is always too easy) the BBC would report this.
    Are there any real research reports proving that AGW is not happening – I know there are plenty saying AGW reports are lies, invalid, distortions,etc. What I want to see is a real report showing that GW is not happening, or is not caused by increase in CO2 or other GHG.
    Mike

  110. thefordprefect (12:08:27) :
    “Are there any real research reports proving that AGW research reports proving that AGW is not happening – I know there are plenty saying AGW reports are lies, invalid, distortions,etc. What I want to see is a real report showing that GW is not happening, or is not caused by increase in CO2 or other GHG.”
    I always love these backwards challenges. How about you showing natural climate change is not happening first?

  111. All this just goes to show that Goebbels was right.
    The media has taken it upon themselves to be our source for public enlightenment and propaganda.

  112. TonyB (11:00:22) , Smokey, excellent! If I might add….
    “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that we’ve been so credulous.” Carl Sagan
    “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.” Michael Crichton

  113. I don’t want to alarm you guys, but I think that polar bear might starve to death, stranded on that piece of ice like no other polar bear ever has been for all eternity, before man caused global warming.
    Polar bears can’t swim, or so I’m told! Let’s make less CO2 so that poor bear can keep living, ok?
    I’d love to talk more about this, but we just bought a new jet, and I wanted to take the family up for a few hours in it. Nah, we’re not going anywhere. Just some Sunday flying.
    But you guys should make less CO2. Think of the polar bears, people. The polar bears.

  114. And while we are “debating” the legislation of “Green Policies” that will influence and change our lives for good are upon us.
    Are we stupid or what?
    REPLY: I’ve been pondering this as of late, replying to trolls on blogs does nothing valuable for society. We’d all be more effective putting the same effort into writing our legislators. – Anthony

  115. “Boris (07:26:13) : Let me get this straight, WUWT is complaining that a non-climate scientist featured in the media makes unsubstantiated claims that go against the consensus view of the IPCC?”
    This thread is about the BBC not understanding what it is doing. Your assertion is off beam. You, unknowingly, have confirmed that the BBC doesn’t know what it is doing.

  116. “We’d all be more effective putting the same effort into writing our legislators. – Anthony”
    Interesting thought.

  117. Former astronaut speaks out on global warming
    Sunday, February 15, 2009
    SANTA FE, N.M. – Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming.
    “I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect,” said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
    Schmitt contends that scientists “are being intimidated” if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.
    “They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that were in a human-caused global warming,” Schmitt said.
    http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/2009_02_15_Former_astronaut_speaks_out_on_global_warming/srvc=home&position=recent

  118. The three countries most responsible, per capita, for filling the air with carbon dioxide from fossil fuels are the UK, the US and Germany, in that order.
    Hansen is simply wrong on this. Persian Gulf states, (Qatar, Bahrain, etc) are far ahead in per capita CO2 emissions. Cheap energy
    The USA, Canada and Australia lead develop countries, followed by surprisingly by Singapore (all that air conditioning plus a lot oil refining).
    Note Canada has a substantially higher per capita energy consumption than the USA and Australia, but has far more nuclear and hydroelectricity. You need a lot more energy to live in a cold climate than a warm to hot climate.
    Also surprisingly Ireland (a country with almost no heavy industry or coal) emits more CO2 per capita than Germany or the UK, likely due to the fact they have no nuclear power.
    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita

  119. Re: Ben Kellett (11:35:09) :
    “Still trying to discover why up spikes are adjusted down the way while down spikes don’t seem to be adjusted by NSIDC in their sea ice daily analysis.”
    Can’t comment on the rationale, but have you noticed the press releases are always framed in the negative:
    Latest release 2/3/2009: “Ice extent averaged for January 2009 is the sixth lowest January in the satellite record.” Nothing about recoveries from record lows of 2007.
    To be fair, some of their commentary has discussed polar wind and ocean circulation patterns contributing to ice melt, but mostly, they’re rooting for the low ice totals to trumpet disaster scenarios.
    Keep an eye on global sea ice averages which are near 30 year averages:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

  120. TonyB (11:00:22) :

    Issac Asimov joined Mensa, and had this to say about it: “Furthermore, I became uncomfortably aware that Mensans, however high their paper IQ might be, were likely to be as irrational as anybody else.”

    I joined Mensa in 1974. Our admission criterium is that you score in the 98th percentile on an IQ test means that we are at least two standard deviations from average. So, why should we be expected to fit in with anything else?
    I met Isaac a couple times at Mensa events. His fear of flying(!) generally kept him in the Boston-New York area.
    I like to think of IQ as the MSG of aptitudes – by itself it has little to offer, however, it helps you make the most of your other aptitudes.

  121. “This thread is about the BBC not understanding what it is doing. Your assertion is off beam. You, unknowingly, have confirmed that the BBC doesn’t know what it is doing.”
    Try rereading Goddard’s post. Look for the term “fatal flaw.”

  122. Philip_B (15:33:05) :
    “The three countries most responsible, per capita, for filling the air with carbon dioxide from fossil fuels are the UK, the US and Germany, in that order.”
    Hansen is simply wrong on this. Persian Gulf states, (Qatar, Bahrain, etc) are far ahead in per capita CO2 emissions. Cheap energy

    I suggest you reread that sentence, it doesn’t say what you think it does.

  123. “Readers please let the BBC know that they have no idea what they are talking about.”
    They’ve never listened to me before. What makes you think this time will be any different?

  124. Field is one of the heads of the IPCC, so he knows what he is talking about. And nothing wrong w the BBC reportage – that’s what Field said. I was there.
    REPLY:Mr. Leahy thank you for your tremendously valuable firsthand insight. Explain then the difference between positive and negative climate feedbacks and why there’s a fear that AGW will cause a negative feedback. – Anthony

  125. “We’d all be more effective putting the same effort into writing our legislators. – Anthony”
    There are a lot of us who have woken-up and realized there are major problems in Washington DC. I have notice those who are awake have similar issues they are worried about. Global Warming Hoax, the USDA/FDA/WTO manufactured food safety recalls, the banking crisis….
    If we are headed towards an mini ICE AGE I figure FOOD is a number one priority because once farmers are gone we are in deep equine feces so I joined:
    R CALF click
    R CALF is very aggressive in tackling the USA government. I haven’t seen anything on the carbon tax yet but I expect to see it soon.
    National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association click
    This is more of a grassroots attack at the state level group.
    They are both fighting goverment and the carbon tax as well as corporate take over of the food supply.
    Track bills AND comment at click
    Checkout the reports that goes to our congress critters at WIKILEAKS
    Congressional Research Service Reports click
    These guy (WIKILEAKS) definately deserve support. The “Disinformation” fed to our Congress critters by the Congressional Research Service deserves watching. The one report I have read so far was bias and completely ignored farmers even though it was about the farm bill. It talked about industry concerns (Cargill and Monsanto) and foreign trade but the only comment about individual farmers stated farmers WANTED Animal ID because of disease concerns. STOP NAIS (Animal ID) made it to #17 at change.org so that was an outright lie!
    Has anyone else wondered whether the global takeover of farmland and the global warming hoax are because the elite believed the reports of “global cooling” thirty years ago. It would explain the Global Diversity Treaty. click The Seed Banks and the USDA insisting that DNA samples of all livestock shown by 4hers be placed in a DNA bank….
    If Al Gore and Maurice Strong buy land near the equator we are definately in deep equine feces. Meanwhile I have already moved south and bought my farmland just in case.

  126. Field’s point was the fact that the rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is accelerating means that ecosystems like oceans and forests that absorb CO2 can’t keep pace. One of the negative feedbacks of climate change is the loss of Arctic ice leaving more open water to absorb heat from the sun….but I am sure you know this.
    REPLY:So then you disagree with the Grist report saying “negative feedback is as real as the easter bunny”?

  127. Re-read the Grist article and we’re not talking about the same thing here — there are all kinds of feedbacks in the climate system. Action-reaction types of feedbacks. I don’t know anything about this notion of some huge negative feedback that will prevent warming. That would be nice but so would the Easter Bunny.

  128. I used the term “negative feedback” subjectively i.e. as a bad thing and incorrectly. Melting Arctic ice is a positive feedback in terms of adding more heat to the oceans which in turn leads to more melting.
    Sorry for the confusion, but this does illustrate one of the problems of communication between scientists and the public.
    REPLY: Sure whatever.

  129. B Kerr (03:14:44): “The BBC is a disgrace. I can no longer watch the 6 o’clock BBC news.”
    True. The other day I was watching the BBC world service and a reporter claimed that we are facing a global recession that might be worse than previously feared. (Note the weasel words “might be” and the scary term “feared”.)
    I was needlessly worried and spent an anxious day at work waiting for the axe to fall. In fact, nothing unusual happened. One could say that it was an ordinary working day, well within normal historical parameters.
    So, for me it’s goodbye alarmist BBC, hello fair and balanced Fox.

  130. CNN have this story complete with calfing glaciers, powerstation cooling towers, polar bears, solar panels on a cloudy day and greenpeace activist.
    At the start it says “leading scientist have been told…” not that the leading scientists said but they were told, if they were so leading then you would think they would be the ones doing the telling. These reports are just backgound noise i dont think most people listen.
    http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/02/15/smith.uk.global.warming.itn

  131. The BBC report stating: “The fear is that increased global warming could set off what’s called negative feedback…..” could be correct, in which case their climate alarmism should be pointing to the risks of a new ice age, surely?
    Or it could merely be the climate doing what the climate has always done in regulating itself. What the alarmists call climate change, I call self regulation.

  132. Thanks Smokey, I sent a comment to the BBC too!
    =========================================
    LOLOL HaHaHa HeeeeeHeeeee! TeeHee LOLOLOLOL! ROTF!
    I can’t breathe! This is so funny!
    Global warming ‘underestimated’?!??!
    ROTFLMAO! LOLOLOLOL
    =========================================

  133. BTW;-) If you want someone to comment on the cracking in the brickwork masonry shown I’m your man! Provided of course I can get the complete picture, I wouldn’t want to comment on only part of what is actually there, that would be unprofessional to say the least, & I would have to place so many caveats on the “uncertainties” involved.
    AtB

  134. Oh, my. On the chocolate thing….

    If nothing was done, and [if]the temperature was to rise, and [if]the rainfalls were to change and [if]drought became more prevalent … [and]without looking into new farming practices, then there should be a problem, and there might likely be a problem,” he said.

    Ya gotta watch these guys carefully. And what the heck does “might likely” mean?
    LOL

  135. Smokey: “Maybe James Hansen truly believes what he says. ”
    Of course he does. When an opinion earns the holder of that opinion millions and millions of dollars, and millions followers (including Al Gore) who mindlessly inflate each other’s egos as they genuinely believe that they are on a mission to save the earth, why wouldn’t he fervently believe it? To rely solely on rigorous, unbiased, scientific analysis of ALL the available data in a neutral and honest way would mean leaving all that money and adoration and his identity of self-professed world saviour behind and becoming a largely anonymous scientist again… Given that choice, who would put science first ahead of an outrageous ego?
    His ego will be his undoing. As the earth cools he will make himself look ever more foolish.
    I am an anonymous nobody claiming that I believe that the earth will probably continue cooling. If I am wrong in a few years, it doesn’t matter personally and I will simply admit that I was wrong. If the earth keep cooling I will say I was lucky to have backed the side of the debate that the Climate happened to favour. It is a 50-50 bet to me, representing the claim and counter claim of a scientific debate that is on-going. Nothing more.
    How can Dr Hansen ever admit that he was wrong after he has built up such a massive façade to live up to?

  136. I see that the BBC’s report on Field’s speech is no longer a headline story, not even on its Science/Envirnonment page (and the image of the ubiquitous polar bear is still missing). But The Daily Mash have got a new take it:
    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/tediousness-of-climate-change-pundits-underestimated-200902161581/
    For those not familiar with the Daily Mash here are some classics from the archives –
    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/the-communities-living-in-fear-of-global-warming-scientists–200807221114/
    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/rising-sea-levels-to-reach-ronnie-corbett-20080417879/
    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/global-warming-to-bring-cannibalism-to-south-east-20080213722/
    and one of my all time favourites:
    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/i%27ll-be-just-fine%2c-says-planet-20080306774/
    ( warning – some adult language, so maybe not work safe!)

  137. thefordprefect (12:08:27) :
    Try this:
    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/jgr07.html
    I’m not saying there’s no warming. Neither am I saying there’s no effect from CO2. The result of this rigorous analysis is that the warming as recorded over land is contaminated by up to almost 50% by UHI and other land use effects, especially since 1980.
    Gavin has not been able to refute this…and believe me he’s tried.
    What affect this analysis has on the whole issue is not known and there is none claimed by McKitrick. But ISTM that the climate models have parameterized to account for a greater contribution by CO2 to the warming than actually exists…so that means the models have mis-calculated the climate sensitivity to CO2 and will have to make more adjustments.
    So to answer your question: “Are there any real research reports proving that AGW is not happening”
    None that I know of, but that is a strawman anyway. I guess it’s those scary ‘negative feedbacks’ in this posting’s update that are very very real and are mitigating against the ‘runaway’ warming many claim to fear.
    HTH

  138. I beleive in global warming, but they really need to sort their stories out. First the public lose confidence in the BBC after the phone-in scandal, and now another potential kick in the head for the BBC, what if people lose confidence in their reporting? We’d be stuffed :S


  139. The BBC have been pushing that one a while – Even on their “science” program.
    They are fatally biased towards any “left wing” agenda you can think of.

  140. The ‘negative feedback’ they are talking about is from that cheesy climate apocalypse movie, “The Day After Tomorrow”.
    We will cook or freeze, and it is all due to coal death trains and SUV’s.
    No matter what happens, for the fear mongering industry, it will be a catastrophe. The idea that Earth is dynamically stable, and that fluctuations in component parts of the atmosphere have happened for a long, long time and that life has adapted very well, is beyond the AGW community’s ability to consider.

  141. Syl (03:26:11) : thanks for the link.
    This is essentially another “they’ve got it wrong” paper (UHI this time)
    What it seems to me is that there is no way to prove pre-instrumental temperatures. There is no way to correct post instrument readings. What is left is a group of intelligencia stating AGW another stating No A in the GW and yet another stating no GW.
    Assuming there is no AGW and money is spent cleaning up our act as if AGW is a fact. More efficient cars/buildings/lighting. Renewable energy (which will not replace conventional power station – required for reserve -but will save vast amounts of fuel). What will be lost to our children – a small amount of debt which is a fraction of what the banks are being loaned/given. The will still have fuel for transport, the biosphere will be less polluted.
    Assume there is AGW and nothing is done – well you can guess the consequences – It will take decades for CO2 to be reduced and it will be more than likely too late.
    Which is the preferential outcome? I will be proud to tell my descendants that I did what I could to give them a future – AGW or no AGW. Will you feel the same about passing them, at best, a fuel impoverished, and polluted existence, and at worst fuel impoverished, polluted, and overheated existence?
    I still am waiting for research that PROVES human produced GHGs are not causing GW
    Also remember ther are other proxies for GW – sea level ris, Glacier volume reduction, ice-on and ice-off days on lakes, etc
    Mike

  142. “I still am waiting for research that PROVES human produced GHGs are not causing GW”
    A simple matter indeed. Look at the paleoclimate and CO2. Don’t bother telling me it can’t be measured. Warm times with low CO2, cold times with hight CO2. Any nary a trace on mankind, anyway.

  143. On the subject of the BBC misleading people, I’d like to draw attention to how the BBC kindly re-wrote Obama’s inaugural speech for him, to make him say what he didn’t say about global warming. The ‘Newsnight’ programme (usually highly regarded) cut the speech into small pieces and then spliced three of them together in the wrong order.
    For further details see the newsnight blog at
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2009/01/restoring_science_to_its_right.html
    or the harmless sky blog
    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=156
    It would be interesting to know what those of you in the US think of this?

  144. Mike, stick your toe in the pacific ocean. It’s temperature is the elephant in the room that you are ignoring. You talk as if CO2 is a visible overwhelming substance in the atmosphere that will suffocate you. Trust me, the snowy poop coming from the cold elephant ocean will bury you in freezing temperatures (or in the case of a warm elephant La Nina will cause you to lay under a sprinkler in order to sleep at night) long before the minuscule increase in CO2 will. If you are truly losing sleep over warmer temperatures, you should be protesting against La Nina.
    And before you jump to the wrong conclusion that CO2 causes La Nina, I suggest you read NOAA’s own research on these occurrences and their cause.

  145. Ken Hall: “His ego will be his undoing. As the earth cools he will make himself look ever more foolish” Of course not! They are already speaking about the possibility of CO2 causing cooling. They will blame all the deniers for their sins and all the devastation they have caused with their conduct, they will send the mobs against you, as before german people was sent against jews. Your are the 21st. century jews.

  146. Brendan H (23:02:15) :
    I was needlessly worried and spent an anxious day at work waiting for the axe to fall. In fact, nothing unusual happened. One could say that it was an ordinary working day, well within normal historical parameters.
    So, for me it’s goodbye alarmist BBC, hello fair and balanced Fox.

    I detect some well-deserved sarcasm there. But really, if you’re limiting yourself to one news source you’re never going to get “fair and balanced”. Fox may get it right sometimes, CNN may too, MSNBC, BBC, etc. But the bottom line for those folks is ratings, nothing more, nothing less. Therefore they become biased in what they report and how they report it, sensationalizing the mundane in order to get and keep people watching.

  147. PaulM (06:36:25) :
    It would be interesting to know what those of you in the US think of this?

    I don’t think much of it at all, since campaign and inaugural speeches are no better than the spewings of used car salesmen.

  148. WestHoustonGeo (06:10:27) : This is what i wrote on another thread
    You cannot seriously compare climate and CO2 for much more than 50My in past. Your plot, for which there is no reference data and is just about the only one I have ever seen on the web, is irrelivant to the current situation.
    look here for land positions at the time of high CO2. How configurations of land mass affected the climate cannot be guessed.
    http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm
    Click a few of the links on the left. Or have a look at the other pages where interactive time/landmass are presented
    mike

  149. I’ve complained before on the BBC website. Got nowhere. It’s a vast organisation with, I would guess, millions of complaints. Seemed to me that the folks who stood outside with placards, re the charity raising cash for the Palastinians, got no where either. Probably the only way, maybe, is to go to the regulatory body responsible or Your MP.

  150. “Most climate scientists, however, are reasonably certain that a negative feedback big enough to overwhelm the well-known positive feedbacks in the climate system, such as the water vapor feedback, does not exist.”
    The fact that these “climate scientists” are even around to make such an asinine statement is proof that there are negative feedbacks big enough to overwhelm the positive feedbacks. Remove the negative feedback from an op-amp and watch it go to maximum or minimum voltage before you blink.
    If it weren’t for negative feedback, we would have the climate of either Venus or Pluto. (I’m old school, I still count Pluto as a planet)

  151. thefordprefect (05:37:12) :
    “Syl (03:26:11) : thanks for the link.
    This is essentially another “they’ve got it wrong” paper (UHI this time)”
    Dismissive, arrogant, decidedly unnuanced. As is your characterization of the arguments as merely A or not A.
    I have nothing more to say except perhaps to thank you for the opportunity of presenting the link to the readers.
    Have a nice day.

  152. I have not seen it noticed yet on this thread that the BBC ran a parallel story on the weakening solar wind by Johnathan Amos: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7632331.stm
    Rather than writing to try to get Dr. Hansen in trouble (a strategy as likely to backfire, imho, as to have any positive benefit), I decided to write this letter of support for some excellent journalistic work by Mr. Amos:
    Dear Mr. Amos,
    I read with interest your BBC article on the weakening solar wind. Do you think it is a coincidence that such a weakening, coinciding with what looks to be a very weak and slowly ramping SC 24, corresponds to a documented softening in increased global temperatures? Is it really plausible that millions of years of heating and cooling driven by natural cycles — prominently including solar output, especially variations in the strength of the solar magnetic sheathe and its blocking of incoming cosmic rays — has suddenly been overwhelmed by a few extra parts per million of human-created CO2?
    Before reading Dr. Svensmark’s *The Chilling Star*, I would have thought so. But no more. It is increasingly clear to me that the Global warming scare is predicated on dubious science, kept alive through the inflammatory rhetoric of demagogues who are so confident in the divine right of their opinions that they refuse to publicly debate their own doubtful premises. I hope that your editors will allow you to continue covering this important story about variation in solar energy output and its possible influence on global climate. I recommend Anthony Watts’ website (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) as one internet source for keeping up with the skeptical position on this vital issue.
    Thank you for your efforts to keep real public dialogue alive.
    Sincerely,
    XXXXXX

  153. The general scientific consensus is that global warming is real and that it is accelerating. What is scary is that glaciers on Greenland and Antarctica are lubricated by liquid water where they touch the earth–which could accelerate their rate of calving into the sea. If all our planet’s landlocked water melts into the sea, our coastal cities will be flooded.
    Some people studying the problem of global warming say that it is already too late to reverse its effects, no matter how hard we try, that the human race may already be extinct, and that most of us display utter denial about this possibility as we continue futile activities such as reconstructing New Orleans, parts of which are already below sea level.
    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

  154. hkyson (18:54:44) :
    The general scientific consensus is that global warming is real and that it is accelerating. What is scary is that glaciers on Greenland and Antarctica are lubricated by liquid water where they touch the earth–which could accelerate their rate of calving into the sea. If all our planet’s landlocked water melts into the sea, our coastal cities will be flooded.

    How exactly do you get liquid water under hundreds of meters of ice due to a minor increase in air temp? I’ve heard this hypothesis, but have seen no evidence to back it up. The only way I can think of where this would be possible would be due to plate tectonics/vulcanism, but that would be pretty localized.

  155. This is essentially another “they’ve got it wrong” paper (UHI this time)”
    Dismissive, arrogant, decidedly unnuanced. As is your characterization of the arguments as merely A or not A.
    I have nothing more to say except perhaps to thank you for the opportunity of presenting the link to the readers.
    Have a nice day.

  156. Jeff Alberts: “Therefore they become biased in what they report and how they report it, sensationalizing the mundane in order to get and keep people watching.”
    News organisations have their own values, which include shock and horror. However, media organisations that have a wide and varied audience and a brand to protect also have an incentive to get it right. They don’t always get it right, but the diverse readership and the public nature of the mainstream media acts as a brake on unbridled speculation.
    And journalistic news practice usually requires the checking of at least the major facts underlying any issue – a constraint that is absent on, say, blogs, which usually don’t bother to go to the source for confirmation.
    This is not to diss blogs, which have their own strengths, and are not so different from the mainstream. They are somewhat similar to the opinion and features pages of the MSM, which permit, and indeed require, an individual point of view.

  157. Jeff Alberts:
    From what I have read, geothermal energy is part of the reason why there is liquid water (even at times underwater lakes) at the bottom of glaciers. But the movement of the ice itself generates friction, which means heat, which means melting water.
    A similar process occurs when people ice skate or move sleds or sleighs over ice.
    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

  158. Part of the BBC problem stems from 2004, they did a weeks programming on the the UK’s Chief Scientist Sir David King who allegedly was the author of the risk assessment “climate change was a greater threat than terrorism”.
    He wasn’t I was. It was part of an anti war post in December 2002 for a UN report commissioned by the UK Government. The BBC accepted I was the original author and was better informed than Sir David, but despite knowing he was not the original author, they went ahead promoting him as the author. The BBC news planning editor said I wasn’t a media celebrity or personality and news was about ratings.
    Hence everyone has been misinformed by a subtle but official case of “Chinese whispers”. The UN group did summarise my work correctly but the UK Government and BBC put a different spin on it.
    Anyone who wants a link to the original assessment, please contact me through our site. Celtic Lion
    Thanks
    Roger
    PS I think the BBC have got their feedbacks wrong. NEGATIVE feedback is a homeostatic self regulating mechanism. POSITIVE feedback is the runaway mechanism

  159. Jeff Alberts:
    Please excuse me for saying in my last message that “there is liquid water (even at times underwater lakes) at the bottom of glaciers.”
    I wish I could re-edit this post to say “there is liquid water, even lakes here and there, at the bottom of glaciers.”
    (I read about them–I forget where–in an article about Antarctic glaciers. I don’t know how the existence of these lakes was verified–perhaps by analyzing seismic activity in the area of the glaciers. Obviously the evidence had to be indirect.)
    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

  160. hkyson (00:51:39) :
    From what I have read, geothermal energy is part of the reason why there is liquid water (even at times underwater lakes) at the bottom of glaciers. But the movement of the ice itself generates friction, which means heat, which means melting water.
    A similar process occurs when people ice skate or move sleds or sleighs over ice.

    So then this would have nothing to do with ambient air temperature, correct?

  161. Brendan H (23:18:46) :
    News organisations have their own values, which include shock and horror. However, media organisations that have a wide and varied audience and a brand to protect also have an incentive to get it right. They don’t always get it right, but the diverse readership and the public nature of the mainstream media acts as a brake on unbridled speculation.

    Really? Do we see equally prominent retractions when they get it wrong? Or are they buried in comments attached to letters to the editor? This particular story is a case in point. They apparently just took the story down instead of posting a retraction.

  162. hkyson,
    You can take “sledding glaciers” in Greenland off your list of disasters to worry about
    FALL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION:
    Galloping Glaciers of Greenland Have Reined Themselves In
    Richard A. Kerr
    Ice loss in Greenland has had some climatologists speculating that global warming might have brought on a scary new regime of wildly heightened ice loss and an ever-faster rise in sea level. But glaciologists reported at the American Geophysical Union meeting that Greenland ice’s Armageddon has come to an end.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/323/5913/458a
    Temperatures in the interior of the Greenland ice sheet rarely if ever get above freezing.

  163. Steven Goddard (05:46:38):-
    More on stupidity, from Frank Zappa.
    Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.
    and
    There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.
    No-one should be taken in by the BBC. As many others have already posted, the BBC doesn’t have a huge amount of credibility any more. It certainly acts like the mouthpiece of a discredited (in more ways than one) government which is getting more extreme by the day.
    In the UK, it is now illegal to take a photograph of a police officer.

  164. “”” Jeff Alberts (19:44:07) :
    hkyson (18:54:44) :
    The general scientific consensus is that global warming is real and that it is accelerating. What is scary is that glaciers on Greenland and Antarctica are lubricated by liquid water where they touch the earth–which could accelerate their rate of calving into the sea. If all our planet’s landlocked water melts into the sea, our coastal cities will be flooded.
    How exactly do you get liquid water under hundreds of meters of ice due to a minor increase in air temp? I’ve heard this hypothesis, but have seen no evidence to back it up. The only way I can think of where this would be possible would be due to plate tectonics/vulcanism, but that would be pretty localized. “””
    Well under pressure, the freezing point of water goes down, so under enough ice pressure, the freezing point could be depressed so much that it is below the ice temperqature which would then melt.
    Now at a place like Vostok Station, as you get deeper, and the freezing point is depressed, you also start running into thermal energy coming from the rocks below, so the ambient temperature rises as you go down, while the freezing point is dropping, so eventually you get water.
    Vostok station is sitting on top of Lake Vostok, so they can’t drill any deeper, without breaking through the ice, and into the lake; and they don’t want to break into the lake, until they have some scientific reason to do that, because they don’t want to contaminate the lake water.
    But you are correct the air temperature isn’t going to do diddley to the bottom of the ice
    George

  165. Good to see that the level of climate change reporting is at the same low levels in the U.K and it is here in Australia. Sadly people are using the terrible bushfires we have had to push their climate change agenda’s. In Australalia the standard “polar bear” is replaced by a dry creek bed.

  166. Jeff Alberts: “Really? Do we see equally prominent retractions when they get it wrong?”
    Admittedly, the media tends to bury their mistakes. But how many people dwell on their own? For all its faults, the mainstream media makes an effort to verify its information.
    A lot of people think that ‘objective’ reporting is old hat, that the ‘he-said/she-said’ style illuminates nothing. But I believe it’s important to retain this format for straight news because it prevents the reporter from taking too many liberties with the facts and, importantly, allows the reader to make up his own mind.
    Op-eds have their place, and can be a more interesting read, but their primary purpose is to persuade, and I think a commitment to inform is vital to the integrity of the media.

  167. George E. Smith:
    Thank you very much for your recent post. I did not know that under pressure the freezing point of water goes down.
    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

  168. Jeff Alberts (08:44:08) :
    Dear Mr. Alberts:
    In an earlier post, you quoted me as follows:
    “From what I have read, geothermal energy is part of the reason why there is liquid water (even at times underwater lakes) at the bottom of glaciers. But the movement of the ice itself generates friction, which means heat, which means melting water.
    “A similar process occurs when people ice skate or move sleds or sleighs over ice.”
    ………………………………………….
    After citing this text of mine, you made the following comment::
    “So then this would have nothing to do with ambient air temperature, correct?”
    ………………………………………….
    At this point, I would like to extend my remarks further:
    According to what I read, the surface of the Antarctic glaciers is melting at a faster rate. This water then goes through cracks in the glacial ice to the bottom of the glaciers, where it joins other liquid water generated apparently both through geothermal heat and from heat caused by the friction of the moving glaciers, adding to the quantity of liquid water below the glaciers and making the ground much more slippery for them.
    If this is true, then the slight increase in ambient air temperatures in Antarctica would indeed increase the amount of liquid water lubricating the glaciers where they touched the ground.
    One other thing I have read: The glaciers in Switzerland are shrinking rather rapidly, worrying the Swiss authorities greatly because they generate a lot of their electricity in hydroelectric plants fed by these glaciers. Once they disappear, there will be no water to feed the turbines of these plants, and they will stop generating electricity.
    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

  169. For your information, Dr. Chris Field, is a co-chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a world-recognized expert in climate science. You don’t have to be a formally-named climatologist to be an expert in the science of climate change, and biology has a LOT to do with climate change in terms of biodiversity, extinction, and what life will survive the changes we will undergo in our climate. This site and its criticism of the BBC is totally inaccurate. Oh, yes, and Chris Field is also director of global ecology at the Carnegie Institute. Qualified enough to interpret climate data? Obviously. He’s no weather man. He knows what he’s talking about, much more than a “blogger” does.
    REPLY: It’s important that you feel comfortable with your own beliefs. – Anthony

  170. The BBC report stating: “The fear is that increased global warming could set off what’s called negative feedback…..” could be correct, in which case their climate alarmism should be pointing to the risks of a new ice age, surely?

  171. The BBC report stating: “The fear is that increased global warming could set off what’s called negative feedback…..” could be correct, in which case their climate alarmism should be pointing to the risks of a new ice age, surely?_?

  172. Thank you very much for your recent post. I did not know that under pressure the freezing point of water goes down…

  173. Er… Systems with negative feedback tend to stabilize. Another illustration of an old problem: news reporters who *literally* don’t know what they’re talking about.

  174. The BBC have been pushing that one a while – Even on their “science” program.
    They are fatally biased towards any “left wing” agenda you can think of…

Comments are closed.