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).
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:
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? 😉
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
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
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).
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)….
Huh. What does the Institute of Physics know about it? They aren’t climate scientists!
sarc off/
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°.
Anthony Watts just cited on Fox for the Site project!
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.
surfacestations got a story on the 6:00 news on Fox. They showed the infamous Marysville pic.
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!
@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
Anthony…
http://twitter.com/am640oakley/statuses/9675789865
Bjorn Lomborg was on our best talk radio station in Toronto…
When are you doing a rebuttal?…
Re: Veronica (England) (Feb 26 15:18),
“Huh. What does the Institute of Physics know about it? They aren’t climate scientists!”
I know, magic, ain’t it!, have a very, very good weekend!
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”
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.
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
“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?
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.
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.]
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.
This is good news, but I’m not holding my breath.
UPDATE 1-Govts agree independent review of UN climate panel
https://ris.rois.com/FhDXmbw245aR2b8PJfLw7oQhBod2eKS8DD-A*41*UbUpl/CTIB/RI3APINEWS?FORMAT=HTML&TEXT=1267200789nLDE61P1NX
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!
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.
Just for the record this was posted on CA First
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm