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

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.

My take on this story here.
Simon
Australian Climate Madness

Terry,
Here is a much more thoughtful story from today’s Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021302514.html

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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…!!!!

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.

Undaunted, the BBC have just ran the story on the main hour news as ‘second lead piece’ – still stating that Prof Field is a senior and respected climatologist. If you would like to contact the BBC news department with your views on this then they’d be pleased to hear from you http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3980000/newsid_3986100/3986153.stm

” 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.

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal
How does this man get away with it?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Lone Buntyne (01:15:00) :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal
How does this man get away with it?

‘death factories’?
Isn’t this a confirmation of Godwin’s law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

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!

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.”

“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

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!”

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

Anthony,
have sent the Beeb some ‘negative feedback’.
I think their minds are made up, though.

Sorry Steven.
You’re not Anthony.

I have invented a new slogan;
Global warming is not man-made, its Mann-made.
What do you think?

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.

Another example of how this story is simply copied around
From the biggest Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten (conservative)
http://www.aftenposten.no/klima/article2927393.ece
Article translated back to English (Google translate)
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fklima%2Farticle2927393.ece&sl=no&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

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.

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.

Sorry, posted a frame link. Here is a functional link to the GCM radiation code.
http://rtweb.aer.com/rrtmg_sw_download.html
http://rtweb.aer.com/rrtmg_lw_download.html

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

And his name. It should, of course, be Dr James Hansen.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

“..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

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?

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…

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.

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.

More of the same:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7887536.stm

Ben, you will find the person who suggested that AGW scientists fudge to impress and scare instead of proclaim honest facts here:
http://infowars.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/enviroment-eugenics-quotes/
And yes, I was scared after I read clear through to the bottom.

“Scientists say that now it is chocolate’s sustainability that needs to be monitored. “
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=6871539&page=1
Nope! No hype here.
There is consensus among Chocolatologists!
I think you’ve won Anthony. Now we need to repair science!

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.

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”.

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.

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

The moment you think you have just read “The mother of all climate garbage” you click and…you find out that “climate garbage” is not good enough to cover this story from our friend James Hanson:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal

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.

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?

Don’t forget the BBC has its own computer climate model
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/theexperiment/abouttheexperiment.shtml
And the results
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/whattheymean/theuk.shtml
All at the licence payers expence

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.

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?

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.

Speaking of former BBC science correspondent Dr. David Whitehouse, apparently banned for his skeptical take on AGW… Here is a interesting article by him:
http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature
Troubling though is that his experience and credentials are lost to BBC because they don’t “conform.” This clearly is the reason for a great swell of blowback from the global science community.

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

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.

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

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

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??

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

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

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

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

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

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”?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

“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.

The Empire Strikes Back
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090215.html

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

“”” 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

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.

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.