Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. on Fox Business News

UPDATE: Bumped, video of this interview is now available below.

I got late word tonight that Dr. Roger Pielke Senior, of the University of Colorado, will be a guest on the FoxBusiness News Channel Friday morning at 10AM EST (7AM PST).

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1155/1398522365_da600df0da.jpghttp://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Pielke_1869v2.jpg

He’ll be interviewed about current issues in climate science. Here’s channel numbers for cable and satellite services:

Cable Providers

Comcast (Digital) Channel 130

Comcast (Digital) Channel 958

Satellite Providers

DISH Channel 206

DIRECTV Channel 359

Sky Angel Channel 319

For cable TV locations in the USA see this interactive finder:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/channel_finder.html

============================================

here is the video of the interview:

Advertisements

103 thoughts on “Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. on Fox Business News

  1. i just see the story now, its 7:30 pst and i am off to work
    maybe therell be a link later?

  2. I just watched Dr. Pielke Sr.’s interview on FBN and overall I think he was very knowledgeable, professional, and articulate. However, having said that, I also felt that his responses were so agonizingly diplomatic that he failed to communicate anything of real substance or importance during the interview.
    Stuart Varney (the interviewer) is a well known AGW skeptic and he gave Pielke Sr. every opportunity to focus on Tom Karl’s complicity in the Climategate and IPCC scandals. Yet all we heard from Pielke was that the climate change debate has multiple sides; that cap and trade is the wrong policy approach; and that Tom Karl might in fact be biased on this issue. Well, DUH! It’s probably reasonable to assume that these Earth shattering revelations were already well known to anyone with half a semi-functioning brain.
    But seriously, It was extremely frustrating to watch someone as brilliant as Dr. Pielke completely avoid any substantial criticism of Tom Karl and the Hockey Team when he knows (perhaps better than anyone) how deceptive and corrupt these people are. This is especially puzzling in light of the numerous back-stabbing attacks and libelous remarks that were made against both Pielke Sr. and his son in the leaked CRU emails.
    In conclusion, I respect the Pielkes’ views and enjoy reading their blogs, but too much is at stake in the AGW debate to waste valuable media exposure on their overly-bland, non-confrontational, fence-sitting ruminations. Until the Pielkes’ realize that there is no “third way” in the AGW debate, skeptics will be better served if people like Lord Monckton and Marc Morano do the interviews.

  3. It’s a good start. Rational, sober (in the displaying even-temperament, not flying off the handle way), not taking easy personal shots. Well said doctor, and hopefully more visible interviews will be forthcoming.
    I wouldn’t bet a snowball on the “forthcoming” part of it though. And we’ve got lots of them.

  4. Well on a related subject, a 48 mile long ice block has fallen off some Antarctic glacier, and that is going to remove all the oxygen from the oceans and kill all the little fishies.
    Funny thing is that nobody even mentioned the 60 mile long ice block that crashed into the glacier and broke the little piece off.
    Nobody gets all upset, when all the ice blocks up in the arctic break up and melt; so why should we be concerned about the southern ones doing the same thing.
    So slow down your breathing and CO2 exhalation or we will run out of oxygen because of these errant ice blocks.

  5. Well I noticed a few days ago we had 14 million square km of arctic ice blocks and now we are down to only 13, 980,000 , so that is a loss of 20,000 sq km of ice blocks, which is about 140 km square, so it is bigger than both those Antarctic ones; and that in the arctic has already melted according to JAXA.

  6. George, i was surprised to hear in German radio today the story of the Luxembourg-sized piece of ice, together with the remark: “Scientists rule out that this is related to climate change.” Maybe they know they don’t have to exaggerate here as Germany is already a Kyoto victim.

  7. Dr Pielke is very polite and nuanced, yet he is very clear in three important points.
    Firstly, scientists are becoming increasingly aware that the climate is more complex than the world has been led to believe, and that secondly, policy makers are still behind the curve (aren’t they always?) and are trying to deal with simple black and white issues.
    And this leads to his third and perhaps most important point. Policy initiatives must be directed towards protecting our resources (ie adaptation), and away from trying to control climate by tweaking a trace gas at the margins.
    If only policy makers would get it. But they are so thick, thick, thick from thick town that they never will.

  8. Great job. He said Karl had a very narrow view. He said legislation will not reach the intended goal of reducing CO2.

  9. I think that Dr. Pielke gave a very politically astute interview. Any politician and any student of the vocabulary used by politicians will recognise a perfectly delivered slap-down of the appointment of Karl’s appointment. It was given in a measured, calm and rational manner making it even more devastating.
    Well said, Dr. Pielke. The opponents of CAGW need spokesman like you, the very antithesis of the hysterical pro-AGW propagandists.

  10. Off subject (sorry)
    Can anyone tell me (I’m not a Scientist) Whether there is, such a thing, as a ‘Theory of Global Warming’…. That meets the scientific definition of ‘Theory’. Like the ‘Theory of Gravity’ for instance? I often hear the term Global Warming Theory…..But I don’t understand, whether there is even a ‘Theory’, as such.

  11. In my eyes, Dr. Pielke did the right thing: requesting open scientific dialogue and questioning whether we should really put all our resources on CO2 reduction. That’s a position compatible with Lomborg and the biggest threat ATM for the UNIPCC’s mission. Very good. Let Morano, Bastardi and D’Aleo do the more outspoken critic at AGW. But what will sink Cap&Trade and the UNIPCC’s mission are the Pielkes, von Storchs and Lomborgs. And of course, as long as we have Dr. Pachauri, he will also help a lot.

  12. This quote comes from the WSJ article that roasts Mickey Mann today.
    The extremists want to both predict and set policy.
    “Mr. Marburger, the former Bush science adviser, said he frequently heard policy makers express frustration at the lack of certainty in many areas of science, including climate. “‘Why can’t we get better numbers?’ Everybody asks that,” he said. “But science rarely gives you the right answer. Science tells you what the situation is, but it doesn’t tell you what to do.”
    Science tells us what happened. It is limited in explaining all the causes behind what happened.
    Like Pielke Sr says, We can’t expect policies to do what they promise.

  13. I think what is said was that the climate changes; And the best way to deal with it is to adapt to the changing climate. Most likely a vastly more economical solution than trying to change the climate through taxation.

  14. Daniel H (09:48:34) :It’s a pity what you comment. Many people are scared to death of being anathemized by msm, however if one is old enough for not trembling before death…climate change squadrons there is not need to be polite or diplomatic with anyone.

  15. OT: This gotta be a joke, right?
    “Whaling worsens carbon release, scientists warn”
    “Whales, like any animal or plant on the planet, are made out of a lot of carbon,” he said.”
    “And when you kill and remove a whale from the ocean, that’s removing carbon from this storage system and possibly sending it into the atmosphere.”
    “He suggested that a similar system of carbon credits could be applied to whales in order to protect and rebuild their stocks. ”
    “The idea would be to do a full accounting of how much carbon you could store in a fully populated stock of fish or whales, and allow countries to sell their fish quota as carbon credits,” he explained.”
    “You could use those credits as an incentive to reduce the fishing pressure or to promote the conservation of some of these species.”
    “He said that the marine carbon credit idea could be applied to other very large marine animals, including endangered bluefin tuna and white sharks.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8538033.stm

  16. GES
    The ice didn’t melt. They just took down yesterday’s number and reposted 2/23. I’d expect the next update to correct this any time.

  17. Daniel H (09:48:34) :
    (…)
    But seriously, It was extremely frustrating to watch someone as brilliant as Dr. Pielke completely avoid any substantial criticism of Tom Karl and the Hockey Team when he knows (perhaps better than anyone) how deceptive and corrupt these people are. (…)

    You need to consider how things might play out. Now we are getting the investigations, which may be whitewashes. Then following what will be proclaimed as Absolute Vindication and Total Proof There Was Absolutely No Wrongdoing, in order for the Hockey Team and related to maintain professional standing, there will come the lawsuits alleging slander etc. Journalists, commentators, and bloggers have different levels of protection, they are just providing opinions or were working from what may reasonably have been considered solid facts, etc.
    But when academics like the Pielke’s say stuff about other academics, well, they are considerably more exposed, and tend to be considerably more reserved in their criticism. For very good reasons.

  18. I was delighted to see what Dr Pielke looks like. He spoke very well and in a measured and very reasonable way. Time constraint would have put any further explanations beyond the scope of this slot. It all helps in the business of chipping away at this monster.
    The climate is changing very slowly, and perhaps the whole AGW business will melt away like the Luxembourg sized iceberg on its way to New Zealand.

  19. George E. Smith (10:25:43) :
    Well on a related subject, a 48 mile long ice block has fallen off some Antarctic glacier, and that is going to remove all the oxygen from the oceans and kill all the little fishies.
    Funny thing is that nobody even mentioned the 60 mile long ice block that crashed into the glacier and broke the little piece off.
    Nobody gets all upset, when all the ice blocks up in the arctic break up and melt; so why should we be concerned about the southern ones doing the same thing.
    So slow down your breathing and CO2 exhalation or we will run out of oxygen because of these errant ice blocks.

    They also have totally ignored one other point regarding the B9B ice berg — its age!

    B-9B, itself about 97 km by 20-35 km, is a large part of the B9 iceberg that calved from the Ross Ice Shelf in1987 and drifted westwards until it ran aground in 1992 on the Ninnis Bank, less than 100 km to the east of the Mertz Glacier Tongue. After remaining in roughly the same location for about 18 years, B-9B recently ungrounded and rotated to collide with the Mertz Glacier Tongue.

    It is clearly an urgent issue, with the B9B iceburg being 18 years old and still unmelted, the ice is obviously melting at a precipitous rate. At this rate it might melt completely in my life time.
    Larry

  20. Correction B9B iceberg being 23 years old, and still is a massive block of ice at 97km by 20-35km, might completely melt in my life time.
    Larry

  21. Re: ChrisP (Feb 26 10:56),
    The short answer is “no”.
    The “theory” of climate is a cocktail mixture of real physical theories , according to the taste of the climatologist, programmed into large computer programs.

  22. Dr. Pielke is the model of how a scientist should do science. His web site about climate science is awesome.
    He thinks that global warming has not been occurring for the last several years because the OHC has not increased for several years and has actually declined in the last couple of years. Pieke recognizes that this falsifies (or at minimum contradicts) Hansen’s 2005 prediction for large, specific OHC gains due to co2 dominated agw.
    I don’t understand yet why there is not a huge debate/uproar about this falsification of Hansen’s ohc increase due to co2 dominated agw hypothesis. There is no better measure of global warming or cooling than ohc. I wish that when Pielke is interviewed by the mass media that he would mention the falsification of Hansen’s thesis.

  23. “ChrisP (10:56:02) :
    Off subject (sorry)
    Can anyone tell me (I’m not a Scientist) Whether there is, such a thing, as a ‘Theory of Global Warming’”
    Gerlich and Tscheuschner had the same problem like you – there is no general agreed “consensus theory”, only old papers by Arrhenius and Callendar and others. So in their quest to debunk the theory they had to use those old papers. They have copies of them in their paper:
    http://www.schmanck.de/0707.1161v4.pdf
    The UNIPCC seems to be very careful to not give a formal definition of the greenhouse theory, probably in order to make it more difficult to falsify the basis of their conjecture.

  24. In just a couple of minutes Dr. Pielke made the essential point that you cannot regulate the Earth’s climate by manipulating CO2.
    This point absolutely destroys the basic premise underlying so-called ‘climate’ legislation (and the EPA decision that CO2 is a ‘pollutant’). If it gets through to just one or two wavering Senators, you will never see such legislation. Dr. Pielke should also be called as an expert witness in the Virginia challenge to the EPA.
    We should remember that Roger Sowell on this board has frequently made the same point, from a control-systems point of view.
    /Mr Lynn

  25. Annabelle 10:59:40 asked:

    BTW, is Pielke really supposed to be pronounced as pal-key?

    I would guess his son knows how to pronounce the family name:
    From the blog of Dr Pielke, Jr, “Occasionally Asked Questions …”
    Q: How do you pronounce your name?
    Pell-Key. Though I’ll respond to Peel-Key. And if I am in Germany it is Peel-Ka.

  26. Erik (11:34:06) :
    OT: This gotta be a joke, right?
    “Whaling worsens carbon release, scientists warn”

    Well, it may be a joke, but the BBC certainly is.

  27. Very balanced comment. Karl must not take sides as there is no consensus as to the cause of “Global Warming” or its impact on civilization.

  28. Erik (11:34:06) The trouble is that whales, as us humans, breath oxygen and exhale CO2, so whales like us are damned polluters!

  29. ChrisP (10:56:02) : “Can anyone tell me (I’m not a Scientist) Whether there is, such a thing, as a ‘Theory of Global Warming’….”
    I presume you mean “Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming” (AGW). One was put forward by the IPCC, but a theory must be tested and verified before it can be accepted as a valid theory. AGW has failed so many tests that it cannot possibly be accepted as a theory in its current form.
    Others here can supply you with information on all the tests that AGW failed – there are many – but they include : actual “global” surface temperatures have been nothing like those predicted, the oceans have not warmed as predicted, sea level has not risen as predicted, the warming was supposed to originate in the tropical troposphere yet the tropical troposphere has warmed less than the surface, and clouds have not behaved at all as predicted (clouds were supposed to provide 40% of the warming).
    Note : failing one significant test is sufficient for disproof.
    So the short answer to your question is: No.

  30. Alarmists are alarming and grab the public interest. Rationalists like Pielke have too soft and balanced a voice to be heard by the masses.

  31. “Science tells us what happened. It is limited in explaining all the causes behind what happened.”
    Well, actually science can do more than just tell us what happened and what the cause was… good hard science can actually make accurate predictions… think chemistry… quite successful in chemical processing that brought us the modern age of materials and product manufacturing… newton’s laws of motion and gravity… quite successful engineering… buildings and bridges that generally stay up… all because some aspects of Nature can be predicted with hard science quite well…
    Unfortunately for us, not all of Nature can be predicted as Stephen Wolfram has proven mathematically in A New Kind of Science, chapter two. Much of Nature, if not most of Nature, generates it’s own internal randomness as a result of the nature of Nature and as a result it can’t be predicted. Nature is “organic” and non-linear. We were lucky with Newton and Einstein that Gravity is much more linear than the unpredictable fluid systems with internal randomness and chaos aspects.
    pwl
    http://PathsToKnowledge.net

  32. just so u know:
    24 Feb: Al Gore to come to Manila to speak on climate change
    GMA News: SM Prime Holdings is bringing in former US Vice-President Al Gore to keynote a leadership conference where top Philippine leaders from the academe, business, government and nongovernment sectors to learn from the experience and expertise of global leaders.
    To be held at the SMX Convention Center at the SM Mall of Asia Complex on April 30, the lecture will have Gore present an Asian version of An Inconvenient Truth, a multimedia presentation on the threat of climate change and solutions to global warming and the subject of the movie of the same title that has won critical and box-office acclaim.
    http://www.gmanews.tv/story/184682/al-gore-to-come-to-manila-to-speak-on-climate-change
    still trying to con the developing world!

  33. Lukewarm to tepid, I say.
    Need people to get up there and don’t hold it back:
    “Viewers, you’re being HAD. You’re being LIED TO. This “man-made” climate crap is FRAUD. Your intuition has been tight all along – it IS nothing but junk based on even junkier junk science!
    It’s time to bring the fraud gravy train to a SCREECHING HALT, and that time is right now.”

  34. “”” stevengoddard (10:41:10) :
    George E Smith,
    Do you really think the Arctic is melting at minus 30C?
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php “””
    Well I just read the numbers Steven; and if it doesn’t melt; what else could it do ? Too much to use up in Martinis.
    Besides Steven I figure if anybody knows what’s happening up there, it is probably you. I was going by the JAXA numbers; but when I look at the DMI temperature graph, I can see why you might question my sanity.

  35. ” … Newton and Einstein that Gravity is much more linear than the unpredictable fluid systems with internal randomness and chaos aspects.”
    The 3-body problem of Poisson’s equation (the Newtonian Field) is nonlinear as can be, and is where Poincare pretty much characterized “chaos” (though not formally).
    The 2-body problem of the contracted Riemann tensor (the Relativistic Field) is non linear and not solvable. The perturbations of a single body in a central force Relativistic field (the field of planetary orbits) are not linear

  36. The Drs. Pielke are gentlemen, and I highly respect their opinions. The science is not ‘settled,’ and their views may eventually become the norm, at which point, the science will still not be settled.
    The noise-to-signal ratio in global temperature is gigantic and trends (if any) are impossible to detect, given a semi-chaotic oceanic heat-sink with periodicity, complex tradewind dynamics, plus tidal, orbital, and solar cyclic influences. There is much that we don’t know, and much that we think we know, isn’t true.

  37. I thought that Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. did a great job in the short time available.
    He came across as calm, knowledgeable and honest, which is pretty good going for a climate scientist!
    His main message was that Tom Karl was the wrong man to lead Obama’s new climate centre, as he would stifle the freedom of the team to look at all aspects of the science.
    He also indicated that reducing CO2 was not the answer and that the money would be better spent identifying areas of risk of drought, for example and spending money to mitigate the effects.
    A sensible, solid performance I thought.

  38. Have you noticed that they have appointed Jan Egeland to being the leader of the next IPCC, atleast this is how it is said in Norwegian here:
    “Dette er en slags oppfølger til IPCC”
    “This is a sort of sequel to the IPCC”
    http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=http://pub.tv2.no/dyn-nettavisen/printversion/article.jsp?id=2844670
    Surely Egeland in this position is a catastrophe! We all remember this:
    The first comprehensive report into the human cost of climate change warns the world is in the throes of a “silent crisis” that is killing 300,000 people each year.
    More than 300 million people are already seriously affected by the gradual warming of the earth and that number is set to double by 2030, the report from the Global Humanitarian Forum warns.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/05/29/annan.climate.change.human/index.html
    http://www.ghf-geneva.org/Portals/0/pdfs/2009forumreport.pdf
    http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=http://www.dn.no/klima/article1680078.ece
    An American scientist comes with a devastating critique of the climate report, which concludes that climate change requires more than 300,000 lives annually.
    The report was prepared by the Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) and estimates that climate-related deaths will reach over half a million by 2030.
    GHF is led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, and the board sits among other former UN emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland.
    Roger A. Pielke of the University of Colorado, however, strongly critical of the report. Pielke studying disaster trends and calls the report a methodologically shame. He argues that there is possible to separate the economic losses and deaths caused by anthropogenic climate change from other types of deaths.
    – “The climate threat is an issue that must be taken seriously. Nevertheless, this report will create problems for the climate issue because it is full of errors, “said Pielke to The New York Times.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/science/earth
    Roger A. Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who studies disaster trends, said the forums report was “a methodological embarrassment” because there was no way to distinguish deaths or economic losses related to human-driven global warming amid the much larger losses resulting from the growth in populations and economic development in vulnerable regions. Dr. Pielke said that “climate change is an important problem requiring our utmost attention.” But the report, he said, “will harm the cause for action on both climate change and disasters because it is so deeply flawed.”

  39. OT but mildly good news for us in the UK … Pravda GB is straining at stool
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100027663/bbc-tells-the-truth-shock-horror-iceberg-not-caused-by-global-warming/
    “AGW sceptics are now connected globally. They know the websites to trust, they can draw on a huge team of specialists and experts, many of them better qualified than the scare-mongers in white coats. This network of sceptics has a global outreach far beyond the scope of the clapped-out BBC.”

  40. And from the same Telegrah article:
    “In itself, it is a very small victory for the truth; but its implications are enormous. It tells us the scam merchants are on the back foot; they are in retreat; it will still require trench warfare for years to dislodge them, but the tide has turned. Just one sentence, almost a throwaway line, in a news report, but it signals an awareness that we are on their case. The AGW hysterics have irretrievably lost the battle for public opinion and now it is time to peel their layers of fabrication and falsehood like an onion.”
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100027663/bbc-tells-the-truth-shock-horror-iceberg-not-caused-by-global-warming/

  41. previous should be “get off” apologies. The APS should/must withdraw its climate change statement immediately or lose further credibility.

  42. Brian G Valentine (13:28:31) :

    Lukewarm to tepid, I say.
    Need people to get up there and don’t hold it back:

    I disagree. I think one reason people are becoming more complacent about AGW is they are getting tired of hearing strident politicians and activists being strident and not holding back.
    All science is going to be taking a serious hit in the credibility department as the house of cards continues to fall. I don’t think it’s going to recover from scientists being opinionated jerks, it will take people who can explain what’s going on and why. There’s still a place for folks like Morano, but that’s in politics.

  43. Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics to the UK Parliament:
    “1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.”
    “2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law.”
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

  44. It’s Much Ado About Nothing insofar as any worries about CTM’s liability is concerned.
    Before any action can be taken against anyone it is going to require proof which is beyond reasonable doubt that illegal entry was gained to the UEA server which held the data which was subsequently released onto the internet. No-one at the UAE seems to know where the original data was being held. Without this information any further enquiries by the Police are bound to be fruitless.
    It is not even sure that the data was copied from a server owned and controlled by the UAE. If, as has been suggested, that the data and e-mail information was held on an FTP server which was outwith the control of the UAE then no illegal access can be considered.
    My advice to CTM is to co-operate with the British law enforcement agency investigating this case but to take very good legal advice before sending them even one word attributable to you.

  45. Oh! Bugger!
    Wrong thread!
    Would CTM or one of his compatriots remove my mistake from this thread and put it where it should be?
    [No can do. You will have to re-post. Then we can delete your original. ~dbs, mod.]

  46. “Stephan (13:47:53) :
    In my my view this is a HUGE U turn
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

    Looks like they take no prisoners:
    “11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.”
    Uh-oh. When somebody arrives on the scene who talks and thinks like a Borg you know you’re in trouble…

  47. @ Ric Werme
    “There’s still a place for folks like Morano, but that’s in politics.”
    And that’s exactly where the main battle has got to be fought and won: real science may triumph over junk science but the politicians won’t be bound by those principles. It will need streetfighters like Morano to slug it out with the pollys.

  48. Re: Stephan (Feb 26 13:47),
    In my my view this is a HUGE U turn
    Thanks Stephan, I agree this appears to be the first recognised scientific body that has complained about the climate science machinations.
    The fat is well and truly in the fire, cat amongst the pigeons, it has hit the fan

  49. Michael (14:10:29) :
    Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics to the UK Parliament:
    “1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.”

    Checked the date by the link you provided, only says “February 2010” at the bottom.
    Since right after the release there were people saying the emails were genuine, how are they now to be proved “forgeries or adaptations”? Or does the Institute mean they are to be proved as such? 😉

  50. Dear Anthony,
    Please read these two Norwegian newspaper links carefully:
    05.30.2009 http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=http://www.dn.no/klima/article1680078.ece
    02.26.2010 http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=http://pub.tv2.no/dyn-nettavisen/printversion/article.jsp?id=2844670
    My point is that Jan Egeland is mentioned in both news articles, and I cannot see how he would have any integrity in distributing climate information to our world.
    I think this astonishing finding deserves a separate breaking news thread!
    Best Regards,
    Invariant

  51. Dr. Pielke does a fine job of diplomacy. He is a government employee and therefore subject to official abuse for revealing too much truth. Leave it to others like Morano to bark loud. All this is about to come tumbling down anyway following the report from The Institute of Physics in the UK:
    “2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. ”
    The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public.
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

  52. stan stendera (14:16:01) :
    British Physicists Society has broken ranks!!!
    ==============
    Soon, the troops will be running all around the shop.
    (Credit to an author I can’t recall).

  53. To: ChrisP (10:56:02) :
    Off subject (sorry)
    Can anyone tell me (I’m not a Scientist) Whether there is, such a thing, as a ‘Theory of Global Warming’…. That meets the scientific definition of ‘Theory’. Like the ‘Theory of Gravity’ for instance? I often hear the term Global Warming Theory…..But I don’t understand, whether there is even a ‘Theory’, as such
    I have a very old science degree so have had to read a lot of stuff to revive what I knew, as well as the AGW issues. The theory is not really a theory, my view, but a semi-plausable assertion with huge holes in it.
    To illusrate with a key one, there are assumptions that there is +ve feedback in the climate system to amplify theoretical effect of CO2. The idea is that a bit more CO2 causes a litle warming, then eg more water vapour is held in the air, which vapour is a srong “greenhouse” gas, which causes oceans to emit CO2 (less soluble in warmer water) and so on. BUT there is no evidence of this on various grounds, both observational (global humidity), and because in the past, warming has given way to cooling, then warming, etc. This feedback effect is in the models, and results in a measure of warming effect per doubling of CO2 way above what the basic physics of CO2 effects would suggest.
    Even the link between CO2 & temperature, in real world practice (rather than in a lab), is based on correlations NOT proved causality, and even the correlations are challenged because the temp. measures are truly difficult to get right, and there is evidence they aint been got right.
    Basically, climate is so complex, with all sorts of cyclic effects eg from ocean heat absoption and release cycles, and varying natural inputs, that it isn’t understood. IMHO, there are unknown unknowns, as well as known unknowns.
    I think most “sceptics” would agree there has probably been some warming over the last century – maybe 0.5 C – but nothing really outside previously observed variations and possibly due to ongoing long cycle warming from the “Little Ice Age” (1300 – 1850 approx). maybe a little due CO2, but slowing CO2 growth a little most unlikely to do anything at all to natural variation.
    Hope this helps a bit. Others who visit the site are much more expert than I, but “there’s nothing on the telly” (TV)….

  54. Huh. What does the Institute of Physics know about it? They aren’t climate scientists!
    sarc off/

  55. George E. Smith (13:35:51) :
    “”” stevengoddard (10:41:10) :
    >> Do you really think the Arctic is melting at minus 30C?
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php “””
    > …I was going by the JAXA numbers; but when I look at the DMI temperature graph, I can see why you might question my sanity.
    The DMI page says “Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel,” so they are really describing polar temps. The Arctic Circle is at, umm, 90 – 23.44°, about 66°. That’s a lot bigger area than the top 10°.

  56. Global Warming, in and of itself (A little. Over the last century.) might make the cut. For now.
    If you add “man-made” in front of the term “global warming”, it’s more of a shaky hypothesis.

  57. u.k.(us) (14:47:51) :
    stan stendera (14:16:01) :
    British Physicists Society has broken ranks!!!
    ==============
    Soon, the troops will be running all around the shop.
    (Credit to an author I can’t recall).
    ———
    I found it, by Kipling. Kind of fits the situation.
    “They moves ’em off by companies uncommon stiff an’ slow.
    Of all ‘is five years’ schoolin’ they don’t remember much
    Excep’ the not retreatin’, the step an’ keepin’ touch.
    It looks like teachin’ wasted when they duck an’ spread an’ ‘op,
    But if ‘e ‘adn’t learned ’em they’d be all about the shop!”
    Trying to hold “the troops” together under withering fire!!
    Let’s keep it up!

  58. @Daniel H
    ‘I also felt that his responses were so agonizingly diplomatic that he failed to communicate anything of real substance’
    I think sometimes the balance of a good expert opinion seems bland but in fact it is absolutely neccessary to prevent ones comments being painted as black or white when in truth we all know good science is neither

  59. kadaka (14:25:13) :
    I believe the Institute is effectively saying “Unless the CRU scientists can prove the emails to be forgeries, their status as scientists is finished”

  60. Sounded kinda odd that they had to emphasize that he’s not denying global warming. Clever, but like I said odd, and odd only because it’s sad that it has come to this, since the tables actually ought to be reversed, i.e. it’s the fanatic believers in ointments to save the world that are supposed to have to explain them self.

  61. Melinda Romanoff (15:37:41) :
    Anthony Watts just cited on Fox for the Site project!


    Beat me to it!
    Both Anthony and SurfaceStations.org got a mention on the Political Grapevine segment at the bottom of the hour, following Bret Baer reporting on the WMO decision to revisit their temperature data.
    Don’t hold your breath waiting for CBS, ABC, NBC, or PBS, though. But every little bit helps.
    /Mr Lynn

  62. “kadaka (14:25:13) :
    […]
    Since right after the release there were people saying the emails were genuine, how are they now to be proved “forgeries or adaptations”? Or does the Institute mean they are to be proved as such? ;)”
    They are Borg. They operate with truth tables. “unless condition X is met”. True or false? IF NOT FORGERY THEN Scientific_Method_Violated := TRUE.
    IF Scientific_Method_Violated THEN Are_You_Feeling_Lucky_Punk?

  63. Invariant (13:47:39) :
    “Have you noticed that they have appointed Jan Egeland to being the leader of the next IPCC, atleast this is how it is said in Norwegian here…”
    Yes, he would be a disaster. A MEGA disaster.
    But you know how it is, there are millions to pick from. The problem is the whole idea in the first place;
    A political body, that can pick the research papers “they like” from a pile of papers….and say; THIS is the concencus…..
    A recipe for disaster in itself, Egeland, or no Egeland.

  64. Very sorry, but the “reasonable” approach to countering alarmism doesn’t cut it. Not to me at any rate, because it gives the appearance of equivocation to some people.
    Equivocation got us to the place we are at now. Thirty years ago most people thought AGW was bunk, if they even knew about it. AGW started to become an “issue” when too few people, who knew all along that it was junk, didn’t speak out.
    Then a bunch of very strong willed people such as Jim Hansen railroaded it into the realm of “fact.” Silencing critics of the time, they blew it out of proportion.
    Morano’s approach is to ram home the notion that the “consensus” behind AGW is falling.
    My approach is to ram home the truth about AGW itself – that it is worthless “science.” And I can demonstrate that before the most knowledgeable people about AGW, because they have nothing to support the ideas behind AGW that I cannot completely refute.
    That has to be done out loud, so that other people will feel confident in the refutation of AGW.
    It’s all about inspiring confidence, that AGW is worthless.
    [and harmful in fact, if things are done in “response” to it.]

  65. There is no way I can keep up with all the threads and comments here so i’m sorry if this redundant…
    I was listening to Fox News Channel today at 4pm MST (6pm EST) when Bret Bair (sp?) mentioned your surface stations website and credited you, Anthony Watts, as the founder. It was good to see you getting some credit for all your hard work.

  66. Van Grungy (16:11:17) :
    You should give Newstalk 1010 a try as it has a new host from 9-1:00 – Jerry Agar, who has spent so long in the US that he’s an actual right-wing talk show host – in eastern Canuckistan! He spent 20 minutes this morning jeering about the stupidity and indefensibility of the AGW theory.
    ———————-
    Stephan (13:47:53) :
    In my my view this is a HUGE U turn
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
    There is no way any of the MSN etc can cope with this one. I would say the IPCC and Penn and UEA are finito. Sounds exagerrated but the big boys have decided to get of the banwagon….
    ————-
    WHOOHOOO! My heart leapt as I read this fantastic news! What a relief – I wrote to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that the Climategate letters would change the entire AGW scenario because scientists, if they wanted to retain the integrity of science, would not stand by and ignore the scientific abuses that have underlain climate ‘science’. Finally, some vindication!

  67. Does the current administration really care whether AGW is true or not? They want and need taxes and more taxes.There appears to be little compunction
    about lying, intimidation, or bribery. A unit in EPA was demolished because a lead scientist insisted upon leaking his research that indicated CO2 was a harm-
    less gas that in some cases was beneficial to humans. There is little unknown
    about CO2, having intimately acquainted with it in submarines, diving rigs, and SCUBA for pleasure for many years. The administration welcomes any facet
    that causes doubt, so their agenda is not too apparent. Nothing needs to be said about the small poor countries that would grasp any lifeline offered.

  68. Anthony deserves EVERYONE’S gratitude for all the work he did to give the public the understanding of the true meteorological history of North America and elsewhere.
    This labor has been an extraordinary Public Service in every sense

  69. I was over at Pielke Sr.’s website the other day and read a post saying that he was interviewed as an alternate for a “top ten climate scientists” article back in October (http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/unpublished-financial-times-interview-of-oct-26-2009/). It’s a good interview, but in it the interviewer states in question #3, “I watched Al Gore’s film again last night to remind myself of the mainstream view…”. Pielke Sr. didn’t answer that question, but just the belief that AIT is mainsteam really indicates how far we have to go with the media.
    Also, did anyone else watch Fox News this morning? I was watching a segment with 2 doctors where they were talking about autism, and the hosts brought up the 2005 study about the now-debunked theory that vaccines can cause autism. I thought I heard the one doctor say, disparagingly, “Yeah, it was the global warming of autism research…”. That comment just made my day!

Comments are closed.