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
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’
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. “
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 politica state of evil that they will not admit any goodpart to intermingle with them.William Shakespeare – from ‘Much Ado About Nothing’
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
223 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Arn Riewe
February 15, 2009 9:24 am
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!
Apropos D King:
“…but when we’ve practiced quite a bit,
we get to be quite good at it!”
Tom
February 15, 2009 9:53 am
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.
The whole thing’s an industry and the BBC are a big part of it.
schnurrp
February 15, 2009 10:09 am
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?
PaulM
February 15, 2009 10:10 am
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.
“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.
Pamela Gray
February 15, 2009 10:21 am
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.
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
John M
February 15, 2009 10:22 am
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?
richard4
February 15, 2009 10:24 am
A Shakespearean comedy indeed!
“”Angels are bright still, though the brightest fell.”
– – Macbeth
Corrinne Novak
February 15, 2009 10:36 am
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.
J.Peden
February 15, 2009 10:38 am
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
Pragmatic
February 15, 2009 10:39 am
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.
Alex
February 15, 2009 10:48 am
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?
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
The BBC is always good for new adventures into “Climate Proctology”
Steve Moore
February 15, 2009 11:15 am
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.
BillW
February 15, 2009 11:16 am
Perhaps the article should have the headline: “Global Warming Mis-Underestimated”
Thank you GWB.
Ben Kellett
February 15, 2009 11:26 am
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
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
Ben Kellett
February 15, 2009 11:35 am
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
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!
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
Apropos D King:
“…but when we’ve practiced quite a bit,
we get to be quite good at it!”
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.
The whole thing’s an industry and the BBC are a big part of it.
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?
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.
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
“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.
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.
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
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?
A Shakespearean comedy indeed!
“”Angels are bright still, though the brightest fell.”
– – Macbeth
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.
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
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.
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?
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
The BBC is always good for new adventures into “Climate Proctology”
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.
Perhaps the article should have the headline: “Global Warming Mis-Underestimated”
Thank you GWB.
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
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
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
Ben and Smokey
Thanks for those extra ones.
Here is another;
“The medieval warm period is an outdated concept Dr Michael Mann”
tonyB