The BBC has perfected the use of weasel words to create alarm. They have a lead story today :
The collapse of a major polar ice sheet will not raise global sea levels as much as previous projections suggest, a team of scientists has calculated.
Writing in Science, the researchers said that the demise of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) would result in a sea level rise of 3.3m (10 ft).
“It has been hypothesised for more than 30 years now that the WAIS is inherently unstable,” he explained.
And how many other global catastrophes have been forecast over the last 30 years? Seems like a new one nearly every week. The article goes on –
“A sea level rise of just 1.5m would displace 17 million people in Bangladesh alone,”
But the author wants us to worry about 200 years from now.
In other words, if the global average was one metre, then places like New York could expect to see a rise of 1.25m. Responding to Professor Bamber’s paper in Science, British Antarctic Survey science leader Dr David Vaughan described the findings as “quite sound”. “But for me, the most crucial question is not solely about the total amount of ice in West Antarctica, because that might take several centuries to be lost to the ocean,” he told BBC News. “The crucial question is how much ice could be lost in 100-200 years; that’s the sea level rise we have to understand and plan for.”Even with this new assessment the loss of a fraction of WAIS over those timescales would have serious consequences and costs that we’ve only really just begun to understand.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WilkinsIceSheet/images/wilkins_avh_2007.jpg
For those who wish to learn more about Anthropogenic Global Warming, I have put together of a collection of Lord Christopher Monckton’s works on this subject. This includes papers, speeches, and one radio interview.
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/LordMonckton.html
Dhogaza,
Real CLimate was started by two of the creators of the long debunked Hockey Stick graph. Why should anyone give an obese rodent’s posterior what’s posted there? Shouldn’t you be back on Deltoid where you belong???
Here is an example of someone trying to quiet a skeptic. Watch and learn:
http://www.liberalmadness.com/video/scientist-pressured
Dash RIPROCK III
Re: Just The Facts (12:46:02)
Glad to see this publicity.
I have seen DTR changes severely misinterpreted (in a jurisdiction that will remain anonymous). Severely costly policy action was taken, inflicting adversity & severe obfuscation on millions. I have confirmed that the same flawed methodology is used in other jurisdictions. Be aware that some governments have their own very amateur in-house climate forecasts – of ghastly inaccuracy — pure simpletonism.
– – –
Re: Stu Miller (13:48:45) & Steven Goddard (18:25:28)
Thanks for sharing these notes.
Steven Goddard (18:25:28) :
dhogaza,
Last year RC was having a discussion which had become focused on an article I had written, and half way through the discussion Gavin started editing and then completely censoring my posts.
The censored posts were not rude, off-topic or inappropriate – and didn’t even include my normal sarcastic tone.
Ah, but you see, dhogaza has already explained: Your posts became “boring” and “uninteresting” to the moderators and clearly had to be edited, as we all know that boredom and open, honest debate cannot coexist. Try to include more flowery adjectives (and perhaps a wee bit of nudity) in your future posts. Oh, and I hear Gavin is particularly excited by shiny objects (and shiny climate models), so there’s another tip.
The biggest problem with the Scientific Jargon:
“Would” “Will” “Could” “Might” “Maybe” is that those who calls themselves scholars estimates from computerprograms, quality of those programs obscure to say the least, a scenario using an unproven assumption “The Human impact on CO2 makes the medium temperature rise” and use that as as fact in their analyse of other assumptions. That’s what Theories of Science call Circle Proof.
Even IF the unproven assumption was true, which I am sure it isn’t, there are Human impact problems closer to home that needs be taken care of not by planning what might happen 200 years from now, but here and now. I am thinking of the hugh usage of chemicals that change the human reproductive capacity and so has done the last 40 years. Some of the chemicals used have an impact on the male reproductive capacity which already have been observed. As it have in more than one animal population as well.
I am also thinking of the chemicals impact on something the so called scholars had had better thinking of as first choice: Clean drinkable water. Some of the chemicals are hard to stop by using biological or chemical cleaning of water. Water for drinking as well as waste water returned to the water system in lakes, rivers and ocean.
It’s a hugh problem that the so called scholars forgotten that they and we all not have time to wait 200 years to see what the impacts will be. We have seen them. So why continue a shadow show with something that are at best a minor probably natural problem instead of taking the real problem on the table seriously? I guess it’s all about money. While it might be true or not that some scholars in gread try to get as much money for their studies as possible, the need of money to solve the real problem in fact is more than quadratic the total of all that money to get a starter solving the real problem for mankind…
There is something else, another word, that is *hinting* at our demise due to the AWG Hypothesis.
Oh, can it really even qualify as a hypothesis? What would falsify it? Hmmm…
Certainly if the AWG Hypothesis Activists (AWGHA) act recklessly that could be our demise!
Steven Goddard
Of course you’re right–ice shelves float.
Generally, the concern about the collapse of ice shelves is the loss of whatever hold-back-effect their is on the ice sheet behind. With the ice shelf gone, the
ice sheet may accelerate…into the sea…and then the sea level does rise.
Obviously, there’s only limited room for ice sheets behind the Antarctic Peninsula itself.
The real worry might be with the ice shelves that extend the length of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The WAIS stands on the sea floor itself. If the ice shelves were to collapse, then the warmer sea water could reach the underwater base of the ice sheet.
OK, I read a couple of comments, and then in came the Christian bashing nonsense. Why? I don’t pick apart the absurdity of the belief that we are the luckiest of beings in the known universe. [sorry about this snip]
This may get deleted, but I hope it does not. The religious comparison is ridiculous.
Reply: I’ll look into it. ~ charles the moderator
Reply2: This looks like Jim Cole’s post upset you. It appears that it was less a religion bashing post than a bashing of the BBC as a faith based rather than objective news source. While it used poor religious and potentially offensive stereotypes, it doesn’t look like the intent was what you perceive. I see no need for action. Next time you complain, can you cite specifics post so I don’t have to look through more than a hundred of them? ~ charles the moderator
Dash
I always wondered why otherwise reasonably written well founded scientific papers whose whole body points to the conclusion that global warming is a fraud, invariably end with the disclaimer “the conclusion of this paper doesn’t falsify climate change.”
Powerful stuff at that Liberal Madness link.
You might want to click through to this Brits at their Best.
They have a link to the complete Monckton segment on the Michael Savage show in MP3 format. Two parts. (If you don’t already have it – I didn’t see it on your Monck page 🙂
And As long As I’m handing out plugs, Steve Miloy’s Green Hell will be the featured book on CSPAN’s Book TV, tomorrow 2 PM (ET). That’s 11 AM over here in California.
norah4you (21:22:12) : “I am thinking of the hugh usage of chemicals that change the human reproductive capacity and so has done the last 40 years.”
Norah, I think the zero growth climate changers view that as more of a feature, rather then a problem.
@Just want truth
Well im afraid i still prefer your
“Where is the NASA that put men on the moon?”
I think this is a clear message to Nasa to make them aware what they are about to through overboard. They should be crying by now of what they have lost. Nasa needs to be told what they are doing by not creating Glasnost and honest science. 20 years ago the Sovjet managed to bring about Glasnost, how many years is it going to take for Nasa?
norah4you (21:22:12) “That’s what Theories of Science call Circle Proof. […] So why continue a shadow show with something that are at best a minor probably natural problem instead of taking the real problem on the table seriously?”
papertiger (23:16:01) “[…] invariably end with the disclaimer “the conclusion of this paper doesn’t falsify climate change.””
Good calls – (and the answers, regrettably, are as simple as they seem – money/funding, maintenance of social connections, administrative convenience, etc. – dynamics of human nature …so no surprise progressive folks are starting to rock-the-boat harder – a warning shot across the bow of the old culture’s increasingly-entrenched sterility – because sterility implies no survival… – the polite, tolerant grace period: tick, tick, tick – continues passing by … … … will they snap to their senses?… be ready…)
“would” “could” “might”… yes well anything is possible.
We have found real solid scientific irrefutable evidence which suggests we may face a catastrophe one day perhaps even soon. *
* or something else
This is the BBC’s own man, Jeremy Paxman:
“the BBC’s coverage of the issue [climate change] abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago. But it strikes me as very odd indeed that an organisation which affects such a high moral tone cannot be more environmentally responsible. “
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/6322259.stm
@Jack Hughes
Great article, I also like this quotation:
“When I asked Yogesh Chauhan, the chief adviser, corporate responsibility, why [the BBC doesn’t buy carbon offsets for their correspondents’ travel], he replied: ‘The biggest impact we can make is through our programmes.'”
Well, the biggest impact any climate skeptic can make is to steer people back towards real environmental problems.
The wilkins ice shelf is “growing”? Surely we’re not living on the same planet.
Wilkins two weeks ago
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/wilkinsarctic/pub/images/ASA_IMM_1PNPDK20090502_124626_000002672078_00367_37495_3057_100m_img.jpg
Wilkins now
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/wilkinsarctic/pub/images/ASA_IMM_1PNPDK20090515_123822_000002412079_00052_37681_8771_100m_img.jpg
Try to locate the big long iceberg that used to be the bridge to Charcot Island…
From Jack Hughes’ 2007 Jeremy Paxman piece: I have neither the learning nor the experience to know whether the doomsayers are right about the human causes of climate change. But I am willing to acknowledge that people who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that it is the consequence of our own behaviour.
Jeremy Paxman is perhaps the BBC’s most penetrating and caustic Newsnight presenter. He once said that when he was interviewing politicians, the question he was asking himself was: “Why are these people lying to me?”
He is, without doubt, an extremely intelligent and highly-educated man. And he’s justly sceptical of politicians. And it shows. But, somehow or other, when it comes to climate change, he can’t bring any scepticism to bear on what they say. He can’t seem to ask of climate scientists what he asks of politicians: “Why are these people lying to me?” Why not?
Perhaps the answer is that, while he is a highly articulate and literate man, he may not have much of a science education. And that’s what he means by his lack of ‘learning and experience’. According to his Wikipedia entry he studied English at Cambridge University, and edited its undergraduate magazine, before joining the BBC to work on radio and later television. He also now presents University Challenge, the BBC’s most demanding quiz show. But what does he know about science? Not much, maybe.
In the UK, and perhaps elsewhere, we have (or had) Two Cultures. Anyone in the education system sooner or later got to a fork in the road, with one way leading to the Arts, and the other leading to Science. And someone like Paxman clearly took the road to the Arts. At which point his science education stopped, and he spent the rest of his time reading English, literature, history, philosophy, politics, and the like. He probably didn’t do any physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, or medicine. He probably wasn’t interested in all that. Because the really interesting issues (for him) all lay in politics and philosophy. Science was for nerds. It was for technicians and engineers.
And that means that when Paxman encounters a science issue, he simply doesn’t have the means at his disposal to examine it critically, as he might critically examine a piece of English, or a political doctrine. All he can do is to meekly defer to the superior wisdom of ‘scientists’ and ‘experts’ of one sort or other – something he would never dream of doing with politicians or civil servants.
And it’s because Britain is being run by Paxmans, largely devoid of any science education, that the whole country has been handed to ‘scientists’ and ‘experts’ lock, stock, and barrel, all scepticism suspended. But these so-called ‘scientists’ are really political opportunists – and charlatans – who have seen a way to advance their own political agendas behind a smokescreen of science. They rely on people like Paxman not being able to bring sceptical intelligence to bear on them. They also rely on their ability to co-opt or marginalise real scientists, who are seldom as politically adept or sure-footed as they are.
When the dust finally settles on AGW, it will perhaps be seen as something which grew out of a cultural division which needs to be bridged, to ensure that, as far as possible, people are given a fully rounded education, in which both Arts and Sciences have equal weight, and there cease to be Arts-educated graduates who know nothing about science, nor Science-educated graduates who know nothing of the Arts. Or, as seems more and more to be the case, nothing about either.
Flanagan (03:45:42) :
The wilkins ice shelf is “growing”? Surely we’re not living on the same planet.
Wilkins two weeks ago
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/wilkinsarctic/pub/images/ASA_IMM_1PNPDK20090502_124626_000002672078_00367_37495_3057_100m_img.jpg
Wilkins now
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/wilkinsarctic/pub/images/ASA_IMM_1PNPDK20090515_123822_000002412079_00052_37681_8771_100m_img.jpg
Try to locate the big long iceberg that used to be the bridge to Charcot Island…
You said the Wilkins Ice Shelf no longer exists. Why are you argueing over its extent?
idlex (06:22:56) :
You are touching a key point on education. Perhaps many do not remember that during II world war a lot of professionals were needed, the sooner the better, so one of the things invented then it was those kind of exams where it is only needed to check/choose the right answer among several, a kind of “trivia”, so producing a kind of “fast food” professionals. The other problem is the over specialization which produces not only that kind of “fast food professionals” but “hamburgers or hot dogs specialists”.
Nobody seems to think that information is material, it is a quantity, and when distributed carelessly it loses content.
Universities so degraded from “universitas” (i.e.:universal knowledge) to “take and deliver” small pieces of so called knowledge. This is why we have such specialists as for example “dermatologists” who, by definition, simply ignore they have to deal with a part of a whole called a human organism.
Then, as before, real breakthroughs in knowledge will be achieved by gifted individuals and it does not matter what naive democratic ideologies we could have, reality proceeds this way.
That is why you assertion of being run by Paxmans is absolutely real.
dhogaza (16:10:39) :
The same endless drivel that typifies WUWT…
So why contribute to it? 🙂
Jack Hughes (02:17:44) :
This is the BBC’s own man, Jeremy Paxman:
“the BBC’s coverage of the issue [climate change] abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago. But it strikes me as very odd indeed that an organisation which affects such a high moral tone cannot be more environmentally responsible. “
To be fair to Mr Paxman, I think the emphasis should be on the first sentence. His suggestion about responsibility is the consequence of the moral tone that he has already criticised – he’s not agreeing with it.
He may not be a scientist, but he demonstrates an aptitude for critical thinking that many scientists should emulate. I’m pretty sure George Monbiot wouldn’t go near an interview with him…
Gary Pearse
Re your comment about the scare cycle, I heartily recommend Christopher Booker & Richard North’s “Scared to Death.” The book charts a number of major scares, including the current AGW nonsense. By their thesis, we’re in the penultimate phase, though with difficult to undo legislation coming up fast, the denouement may not come quickly enough.
Southern Hemisphere ice :
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
2009 has done its “May Day” crash in to 2008. It now looks to be surpassing 2008.
It looks like the Wilkens ice shelf hasn’t has any effect on this rapid growth. And it looks like that fact isn’t having any effect on the alarmists. They still will be alarmists anyway.
idlex (06:22:56) “When the dust finally settles on AGW, it will perhaps be seen as something which grew out of a cultural division which needs to be bridged, to ensure that, as far as possible, people are given a fully rounded education […]”
Well-said – (& not just the part I’ve quoted).
It’s not just the arts-science split, it is also the splits within each. I’ve been around 7 branches of science — the good folks speak different languages. The knowledge I bring from other disciplines doesn’t always get the respect it deserves – and non-math/stats folks tend to overestimate what goes on in math/stats camps (which tends to be abstract, since you don’t (generally) get as much respect in those fields if you go “applied” instead of “pure”). I could go on in detail…
You’ve made the point that the climate issue is multi-disciplinary – that’s it in a nutshell — (everyone has a say).
– – –
Adolfo Giurfa (10:20:16) “[…] “fast food professionals” but “hamburgers or hot dogs specialists”. Nobody seems to think that information is material, it is a quantity, and when distributed carelessly it loses content.”
Nice. This gets complicated. How do I even comment without being labeled a socialist? (even though such attacks are laughable leftovers of cold war propaganda programming – capitalism is _so_ firmly entrenched – what’s the point in trying to obfuscate that reality?…) Since people won’t talk sense, we are stuck with a mess (for now…)
– – –
dhogaza (16:10:39) “The same endless drivel that typifies WUWT […]”
James P (10:55:52) “So why contribute to it? :-)”
dhogaza makes some good points (not saying this was a tasteful one of them tho)
The Beebe’s Jeremy Paxman:
I have neither the learning nor the experience to know whether the doomsayers are right about the human causes of climate change. But I am willing to acknowledge that people who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that it is the consequence of our own behaviour.
This sounds like the ultimate cop-out. Anyone halfway intelligent, with some common sense, willing to do a modicum of digging has the ability to see through the doomsayers.
idlex said: Perhaps the answer is that, while he is a highly articulate and literate man, he may not have much of a science education.
Sorry, but I’m not buying it. Paxman clearly is showing both moral and intellectual cowardice on this issue. A scientific background really isn’t necessary to be able to see through the bovine manure. Some cojones are, on the other hand, somewhat necessary to do something about it.