Thanks to MagicJava for putting this into a YouTube video at my request:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks to MagicJava for putting this into a YouTube video at my request:
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Dr. Phil Jones section is missing his contribution to the Urban Heat Island discussion. That is: He’s the guy claiming a thermometer parked between two barbeques outside Grand Central Station is going to have the same temperature as a themometer in the same location without all of the buildings, people or heatsources. Within 0.1C, naturally – have to include the error limits.
CRU also actually implements “corrections” for the UHI they claim is so slight. They do this by depressing past measurements instead of by trying to more accurately calculate “what the gridcell temperature would be without the city.” (You don’t actually want a measurement of the city’s temperature, you want a measurement of the average temperature in the quite large gridcell that happens to contain a city.
Can you remove the PSU logo? I’m an alumni, and he does not represent what Penn State is about. His actions speak for him only. Besides, many of his most questionable activities occurred while at Virginia.
Wonderful video.
These people are zealots and frauds.They need to go away in shame.
On the other hand maybe it would be better if they stayed where they are, but had their research data completely open to review. With their insider knowledge, if they go underground they could come up with tricks for others and never be called on them.
Dr Mick Kelly is no longer employed by CRU.
Way OT, but the song half-way through the video (“Hurt”) was done very powerfully by Johnny Cash just before he died.
My recommendation: Build a fire, pour yourself a stiff one, and watch.
Good video, I’d have emailed it to Hillary Benn MP with the email I sent him an hour ago about Climategate.
[snip]
Much that can and should be added to this, but a good start anyway.
I thought it was funny
Sorry Tucker but if he still works at Penn State the logo should remain, and gotten rid of when he is fired!
Under no circumstances should the Penn State logo be removed. Live by reputation, die by reputation. Penn State should be more careful about whom they hire, and most especially about what their faculty say.
Just a quick question, I like the music. Anyone got a playlist?
On the video, the text doesn’t look good against some of the backgrounds, unfortunately can be hard to read. Otherwise, a good vid.
If there was going to be a revision to this, I’d suggest just tidying up e.g. don’t need two identical references to the CEI lawsuit, footnote reference for ‘amount’ of arctic ice so as not to leave open to the extent vs thickness question, fix Dr Kelly’s employment status, not sure if there’s really room to discuss UHI.
Let this stand as is and move on to one with media/professional quotes about ‘political’ IPCC, etc. (while I’m dictating work for other folks…)
OT but very interesting comment from an IPCC member found at the Daily Telegraph
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018192/climategate-the-ipcc-is-over-says-uea-climate-scientist/comment-page-3/#comment-100089849
If the link doesn’t work – look for a contributor called Ros at 11:48 27th November.
[snip if you think is best]
Here is the verbatim
“I struggle to get Mike Hulme. He is part of the East Anglia crowd and does seem to be a fully paid up member of the supress the “bad guys” mob. He is both a recepient and sender in the CRU emails. As yet I haven’t seen any that suggest that he was opposed to the culture. Maybe it is an understanding that has emerged for him. I did hear him on All in the Mind and was very impressed. Felt he had the ability to penetrate fixed positions, he did imping on mine. But then came the CRU emails. And his role in IPCC
I am a member of the IPCC Task Group on Climate Scenarios for Impacts Assessment and co-Manager of the IPCC Data Distribution Centre for climate scenario information for the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the IPCC. I am also a Convening Lead Author for Chapter 13 on climate change scenario development and Lead Author for Chapter 10 on regional climate information in the WGI report of the IPCC TAR.
I am both taken by and yet bothered by his post-normal science position. Particularly worried by the fact that it seems to me that western science has indeed moved to being about risk and regulation (which is what post normal science is about?)with the rest of the world still being about science for production of things and knowledge etc. An eg China and its 40%, as my Engineer husband said, effeciency drive, good idea, and of course it is, it is a subset of China’s energy and economic security policies, not its environmental policies.
Will continue to read Professor Hulme with interest and respect, but.”
Delingpole left a comment asking for Ros to get in touch with him.
Nice. A minor suggestion — on many slides, you have a sub-title followed by a few quotes. So it looks like this:
– Sub-Title
– quote 1
– quote 2
I think it would be more impactful for the uninitiated if you used a format that looked more like:
Sub-Title
– “Quote 1”
– “Quote 2”
Where there’s no bullet for the sub-title and each of the quotes is bullet-ed and surrounded by quotation marks.
Robinson – the first track is Depeche Mode – Policy of Truth
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/depeche+mode/policy+of+truth_20039451.html
Are you sure about the quotes attributed to Tom Wigley concerning weather in Boulder? I think these originated fromKevin Trenberth.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt
This is so risible – here is the BBC’s Environment reporter’s blog [ Mr Richard Helpful Black] – after getting a total kicking on other BBC blogs that did allow comments – they’ve left the last two posts up for comment. It’s like some weird messageboard where the landlord has gone on holiday and the mods pass anything through = email quotes, other media stories, code excerpts – its bizarre.
Check out the earlier ones full of posts to sites like this and other MSM stories whilst the BBC go la-la-la. I find the whole thing really embarrassing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/11/copenhagen_countdown_10_days.html#comments
Copenhagen is what this is all about; fear of regulation even though most of you folks have no stake in the oil and coal companies, you believe in them no matter what they charge for their products. I’m just a curious journalist with actual training in the sciences so I like facts.
Where is the email that refutes this fact?
“In summary, we know that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation because many independent observations show that the carbon content has also increased in both the oceans and the land biosphere (after deforestation). If the oceans or land had contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, they would hold less carbon. Their response to warming may be real, but it is less than their response to increasing CO2 and other climate changes for the moment.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/
How do we know CO2 is the culprit? The Suess Effect.
http://www.canadianarchaeology.ca/radiocarbon/card/suess.htm
I knew that was Depeche Mode! Just enjoying the unravelling of this lying clique of scientists. They are a disgrace to all science.
Brent in Calgary
marky48 (09:59:42) :
Quite a “journalist” you are. I can just see you after the release of the Whitehouse Tapes:
“Show me the tape that refutes this statement: Richard Nixon has had a long distinguished career as a public servant. He cares about the country and has been trying to do his best during these trying times”.
I trust your “training in the sciences” is a little more rigorous than your investigative reporting skills.
Music really appalling and likely to put people off if they are too lazy to press mute on
I’ve just tripped over this at the end of a documentary.
This should be part 4 – it has loads of very interesting stats.
Just for reference, I’m a political better and have been sharing concerns with others who are stat/probability experts on polling analysis. It’s a totally different field, but we’re only interested in facts rather than theories as we’ve wagered our money on it.
marky48 (10:02:19)
The amount of CO2 emitted by humans is minuscule compared with what the oceans and decaying vegetation outgas: click
According to the Department of Energy and the UN IPCC, out of 793,000 MMtons of CO2 emitted, only 23,000 are emitted by human activities. So realclimate is wrong once again.
And of course, there is zero empirical evidence that CO2 is anything but beneficial. Bet you didn’t know that either, did you?