A sad commentary on global warming alarmism: Science says one thing, scientists another

Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill kindly allows me to repost this here.BBC_Logo

Anyone would think there was a big climate conference coming up, because the BBC is pumping out the climate propaganda left right and centre. A couple of nights ago we had Kirsty Wark fawning all over Chris Rapley on Newsnight (from 40 mins) and wondering why good people like him weren’t making the policy decisions. Today we have Roger Harrabin on ocean acidification (video here).

The samples are chalky white for millions of years from the fossils of tiny shellfish. That’s until this dramatic point 55 million years ago [the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum; PETM], when the oceans suddenly got hotter and more acidic and the shellfish disappeared. It took shellfish 160,000 years to recover and scientists say humans are changing the seas ten times faster than at this catastrophic event…

We then get a brief interview with Professor Daniela Schmidt of Bristol University (the recipient, like her colleague Stefan Lewandowsky, of a Royal Society research fellowship). Here’s what she had to say:

My children will be alive in 2100. I would like them to be able to swim above a coral reef and enjoy its beauty. I would like them to be able to eat mussels and oysters and crayfish and if we continue to release CO2 at the current rate this is not going to happen.

Golly. Sounds pretty scary eh? Fortunately I was somewhat reassured by this paper in Geology, by the same Professor Schmidt, which discusses the same abiotic zones in the oceans at the time of the PETM. As the paper draws to a close, Prof Schmidt says this:

[Recent] papers highlight the migration of phytoplankton to follow their niche, and suggest that the extreme warmth led to an absence of calcifiers in tropical waters. Intriguingly, though, this abiotic zone appears several tens of thousands of years after the onset of the extreme temperatures and the acidification, is associated with changes in lithology, and follows a gap in the record.

If the abiotic zone appears tens of thousands of years after the temperature rises, I’m wondering why, when interviewed by Roger Harrabin, Professor Schmidt says she is worried about whether her children are going to see coral reefs and eat shellfish. Perhaps the excitement went to her head.

The rest of the paragraph is worth a look too:

This potentially slow response contradicts everything we know about ecosystem response to decadal temperature variability; for example, the North Atlantic Oscillation (Beaugrand et al., 2009; Beaugrand et al., 2002) or the California upwelling system (Chavez et al., 2003; Chavez et al., 1999). Aze et al. explain the abiotic zone by comparing it to the temperature adaptation of modern foraminifers. One would expect, though, that Paleogene foraminifers which evolved in an ∼15 °C warmer environment than today (Huber and Caballero, 2011) were generally adapted to these warmer temperatures. As so often, new papers ask more questions than they answer, such as: why are these abiotic zones not found at other open ocean sites nearer the equator? If the high-end temperatures are reasonable estimates, these might point to physiological limits at which enzymes start denaturalizing. Given the high metabolic rates in response to these high temperatures, the size of the supply of food needed to sustain the organisms is a pressing question and might have played a role in a regional exclusion. More work is needed, though, to move from assessments of past climates to predictive models for policy makers of the impact of future climate change on marine ecosystems, such as the cascading effects of these potential abiotic zones on food webs.

So the abiotic zone (or is it zones?) are not even seen at all tropical locations! Astonishing. There is quite a lot more to this story than the BBC would like you to know, isn’t there?

I’m not holding my breath for a correction though: Roger doesn’t correct things. The BBC will run with it all day.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 3, 2015 10:44 am

Oh my! We’re all gonna die in a burning, stinking, melting pile of flaming flesh! May the government’s of the world save us all from ourselves because everyone knows they are best qualified to deal with this stuff…

Reply to  John
July 3, 2015 1:50 pm

.”..pumping out the climate propaganda left right and centre.”
Mostly from the left, I think we can agree.

Reply to  aneipris
July 5, 2015 12:24 am

There is no left right paradigm when it comes to pushing an agenda. I agree that the left is pushing CAGW and we have to push back. But I’m not going to take the right wing agenda for cash either. That’s folly.

Climate Pete
Reply to  aneipris
July 5, 2015 2:22 am

It’s only in the US, Canada and Australia that AGW is a party political issue, or in fact a political issue at all. The rest of the world pretty much accepts it.

Reply to  Climate Pete
July 5, 2015 8:19 am

Sure, it’s not political in China or Russia, but partisan politics requires 2 sides. Chinese and Russian scientists understand the idiocracy behind climate alarmism and give it the politically correct lip service because they also understand that encouraging economic suicide of the competition is good for them.
I should also point out that every country has skeptics its just that some countries are better than others at suppressing ideas that they don’t want to hear, moreover; many of the countries where this is not a political issue are dominated by socialist far left politics anyway.

Reply to  aneipris
July 5, 2015 12:28 pm

CAGW may not be a political issue in left thinking places like India, China, and Russia, and their populations may accept it as fact, but on the other hand none of these three are willing to spend much, if any, money on policy designed to alter “world climate” since they see that as pure folly and waste of resources. As it so clearly is…
There is no reason for them to follow the agenda because these governments already have leftist and statist regimes in place. Few actual scientists actually believe that any effort humanity can exert can have a meaningful effect on cooling the planet on human time scales anyway. In the more centrist places where this IS an issue it is pushed as a means to the end of forcing leftist, statist policy on the unwilling centrist half of the population.

Rational Db8
Reply to  aneipris
July 5, 2015 1:34 pm

@Cllmate Pete
Oh really? By “accepts it” just what do you mean? In fact worldwide “global warming” is nearly universally placed LAST when people are asked which of 16 items they believe to be the most important:
UN Poll Reveals: Global Population Not Convinced by Climate Change Scaremongering A global poll of more than 6.5million people has placed climate change at the very bottom of a long list of priorities, with the finding being consistent across both genders, almost all age ranges, all education levels and in most regions of the world. (h/t Watts Up With That)…
In fact it’s ONLY the locations you claim don’t “accept” it, that it’s higher than dead last on the list.

Reply to  aneipris
July 6, 2015 9:32 am

How many opportunities have the in-power parties failed to avail themselves of both-house control to craft top-level legislation, similar in simplicity to the BIll of Rights, setting out clear, transparent, limitations on regulations. Part of the problem for both sides of the aisle is that there is no meta-law similar to specific segments of the US Constitution which define, to some extent, what a well formed law is; were there some such meta-law limiting the important parameters of regulations, plus further meta-laws defining the laws the regulations are meant to implement and cross-referencing law and regulation, both the intent of Congress would be manifest to the courts litigating challenges to the laws or implementing regulations, but the extent to which a regulation fails to meet the requirements of the law, or exceeds its scope, would be likewise obvious to the courts, and futile attempts to litigate the science behind both laws and regulations would be rendered moot, and the courts might not have to hide behind scientific ignorance, because the foundational law being implemented would have to define not only regulatory scope, but also specific, motivated goals beyond which the regulatory agencies may not in any way change limits or goals without legislation.
And it wouldn’t hurt to have a meta-law defining which kinds of laws may cover more than one topic (as a “reasonable person” might perceive it), as several states have for citizen initiatives. I realize that the quid pro quo appears to be necessary among legislators for whom the facts and issues seem less important than the sanctity of House or Senate tradition, meaning that almost any law passed nowadays in DC will puzzle and bemuse (and frustrate) observers of all stripes. And perhaps with 537 or so legislators’ hands on the till of a 325-million population, it is easy to make every action much more complex and/or complicated than necessary. I can’t wave this away with my 11″ cherrywood, dragon heartstring wand, alas, but I can suggest a package of amendments.

Reply to  John
July 3, 2015 4:27 pm

Speaking of heat, thanks to the unprecedented levels of CO2, it is so hot
out west here, that I am doing all my cooking on patio surface, saving the planet by not using all that “green” energy. Turn off the electricity, gas, wind, nuclear, … cook on the burnt lawn!

Reply to  highflight56433
July 4, 2015 1:45 pm

On the news last last night: In GB is so hot (36 Apparently) that men are leaving the toilet seat up so they can get a COLD stare from the women……Boom Boom….

Rational Db8
Reply to  highflight56433
July 5, 2015 1:47 pm

The patio surface – a true “slow cooker” method. 😉 It HAS been hot here for a few weeks (107-113), finally getting a bit of a break starting today (101 & dropping down to a cool 97 forecast for the 10th)…. but then it hasn’t been nearly as hot as it has been in some recent years either (weeks above 110 to 117ish). We get that in a week or so, apparently. But hey, it’s a dry heat (25% humidity,fairly high for here actually), even though we’re into monsoon. What fun.

Paul Mackey
Reply to  John
July 7, 2015 12:48 am

Wait, so these things “evolved in an ∼15 °C warmer environment than today”. Yet we are to believe that a two degree increase will wipe out many species and life as we know it??

July 3, 2015 10:46 am

It’s truly unnerving when scientists cannot even follow the logic of their own research. That is the very definition of cult and groupthink.

Roy Jones
Reply to  Alan Poirier
July 3, 2015 12:16 pm

“It’s truly unnerving when scientists cannot even follow the logic of their own research. ”
Alan, their logic is: “follow the money”.

Climate Pete
Reply to  Roy Jones
July 5, 2015 3:01 am

If you follow the money it leads straight to the $4tr a year fossil fuel industry which has a habit of funding right-wing think tanks. Funding for climate scientists has changed little since before AGW became an issue, except they now occasionally get bright shiny new satellite toys and Argo floats to play with.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Roy Jones
July 5, 2015 1:52 pm

@climate pete
Pretty much everyone here, with the exception of you, is quite well aware of the fact that pro-AGW scientists get vastly more funding than the skeptical scientists. We also are well aware of the fact that most skeptical scientists aren’t funded by the fossil fuel industry at all either.

Reply to  Alan Poirier
July 3, 2015 12:30 pm

You left out “crooked”, “not to be trusted”, “criminal”, and “defrauding the public”.

Gerry, England
Reply to  papiertigre
July 3, 2015 1:44 pm

Good description of the BBC.

July 3, 2015 10:49 am

We should be grateful that it is as yet not necessary for Prof Schmidt to add similar politically correct verbiage to his publication in ‘Geology’. Of course I suspect that this loophole will get closed soon.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 3, 2015 10:51 am

Roger Harrabin is a complete waste of space, but Kirsty Wark usually does her research. I didn’t see her interview. The BBC will never give up on climate change; it’s an institution that moved to the Left many years ago, and sees climate change as an excuse to change the world towards Socialism. People around the world should also be informed that Socialism is taking a really big hit in Britain. The Socialist party (Labour) are seriously on the ropes here, and actually could die out.

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 3, 2015 1:02 pm

While Labour dying out is a consummation devoutly to be wished, what appears to have happened IMO however is that it has simply been replaced in Scotland by the SNP, a national socialist party, ie N@zi, even further to the Left than Labour’s English and Welsh socialists.

Reply to  sturgishooper
July 3, 2015 10:05 pm

Isn’t socialism the savior of Greece?

Reply to  sturgishooper
July 4, 2015 1:25 am

You are claiming
(a) the SNP is “even further to the Left than Labour’s English and Welsh socialists”
and, at the same time,
(b) the SNP is ultra-right being “a national socialist party, ie N@zi”.
You really don’t have a clue.

Reply to  sturgishooper
July 4, 2015 1:33 am

You ask

Isn’t socialism the savior of Greece?

That remains to be seen.
Right of center Greek governments caused the present economic mess which the present socialist Greek government was recently elected to sort out. Personally, I think the present government is going about things wrongly (e.g. the referendum to be held tomorrow), but in a year from now it will be clear whether or not socialism will have been the savior of Greece.

david smith
Reply to  sturgishooper
July 4, 2015 3:17 am

Richard, the clue is in the name: National ‘Socialist’. Calling N@zism right-wing is a misnomer. I think it’s you who isn’t picking up on the clues. The SNP are hard-nosed left-wing radicals, and the only party who wants to cosy up to them are the Greens, which says something about both parties’ philosophies.
Socialist parties always run out of everybody else’s money in the end. I’ve seen it all my life here in the UK: Labour comes to power, runs out of money and public services collapse, the Conservatives are voted in and manage to dig us out of the socialist mess, people with short memories forget about the previous mess and start getting ridiculously wistful ideas about the marvels of socialism, Labour get voted in and run out of money, the Conservatives return to power and dig the country out of the financial pit,.. etc etc ad infinitum.
Socialism would work wonderfully if everybody was completely altruistic and selfless. But humans are not hard-wired that way, we always want the best we can get for ourselves and our families. Capitalism is (currently) the best way of getting as many people as much as they want and enabling as many people to climb the ladder of success without government largesse. As Fredric Bastiat said:
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.”
Socialism always sounds lovely on paper, but never works out in the real world. This is why so many in academia are left-wing, as they have never really had to deal with the cut and thrust of the real commercial world:
“The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.”
— Thomas Sowell
I’m a teacher who has met so many self-proclaimed ‘marxists’ in the schools I have worked in. I have watched with horror as these left-wing radicals shovel socialism down children’s necks as though there is no other political pathway that can possibly be considered. When kids ask me what I believe I tell them about my libertarian attitude to life, why I vote for a right-wing party, and why I believe it is the best solution for the country. However, I always make the strong point to the kids that they must look at all areas of the political spectrum, get themselves clued-up, make their own choices, and don’t just take my word as the ultimate truth.

Reply to  sturgishooper
July 4, 2015 6:39 am

Richard, Many libertarians and others don’t believe the right-left classification is sufficient or accurate. Have you ever checked out sites like the world’s smallest political quiz? After you take the quiz is shows a diagram of political systems not based on right-left and also has a link to a main site with definitions of various systems.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  sturgishooper
July 4, 2015 1:24 pm

david smith, that is an excellent piece. You summed up what I go around saying! I was once to the Left, during the 1980s. But I moved to the Right when I realised that Socialism can simply never work. I get exasperated that those on the Left cannot see it. I still have some leftist ideas, like nationalisation of the electricity, water and rail services (for the good of the people) and I also believe in a £10/hr minimum wage (something I would dearly love to see happen).

Reply to  sturgishooper
July 4, 2015 1:27 pm

Extreme right and left meet, as in a closed cosmology.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  sturgishooper
July 4, 2015 1:28 pm

billw1984, I took the quiz, and ended up a Centrist.

Reply to  sturgishooper
July 4, 2015 3:04 pm

billw – like the Ghost, I did, too.
A bit rightish, but Centrist.
Dunno who might be the whackoes outside that select 96% who grade as centrist (well, if I do . . . . . . . . ) [NB – not 97%. That is not a popular number, I think!] .
Do you know folk who wear tin foil inside their hats??

david smith
Reply to  sturgishooper
July 5, 2015 12:48 pm

@jim c

I still have some leftist ideas, like nationalisation of the electricity, water and rail services (for the good of the people) and I also believe in a £10/hr minimum wage (something I would dearly love to see happen).

I believe exactly the same too (the break up of British Rail was awful). Like you, I was a socialist when I was young and naive, but like all true sceptics I changed my mind when I realised the theory of socialism didn’t work in the real world.

Rational Db8
Reply to  sturgishooper
July 5, 2015 2:01 pm

@ richardscourtney
The NAZI’s were very much a creature of the left, not the right. They were completely a stateist/fascist nation with government controlling everything — e.g., totalitarian systems.. It’s revisionist history to put them on the right. Even Hitler viewed the Communists as his enemies, not because their ideology was diametrically opposed to his, but because they were so very close that he feared losing supporters to them.
From the eminent liberal scholar: “Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center” Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
Socialist or Fascist
Socialism, And The Left-Right Political Spectrum EXPLAINED
The Concise Encyclopaeda of Economics: Fascism

“As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power…
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions….

Rational Db8
Reply to  sturgishooper
July 5, 2015 2:12 pm

@David Smith
Exactly. Another Bastiat:
“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone” [emphasis added]
–Frederic Bastiat
Or as Thatcher said:
“The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money to spend”
–UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
Historically the failure of such totalitarian systems has been proven time and again, because exactly as you note, it works great in utopian ideals, but fails as a result of very basic very real human nature. These systems have, time and again, resulted in mass dire poverty, terrible shortages of basic product and necessities, starvation, mass murders of citizens by their own state, and literally hundreds of millions killed this way.
But supporters of such systems always make up excuse after excuse — well, they just had the wrong people in charge, well, if we just did it a little different, it would all work out wonderfully! Only history proves that to be totally false. The definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result.
On the other hand, “greedy, mean, unequal” capitalism and free markets have done more to raise billions out of abject poverty while even increasing the living standards of those still in poverty than any other system ever tried.
Excellent video clip of renoun economist, statistician, and author: Milton Friedman – Greed
You Want More Equality? Support More Capitalism Free markets are the real source of economic opportunity

Paul Mackey
Reply to  sturgishooper
July 7, 2015 12:55 am

The SNP are totally illogical. They want an independent, self determining Scotland, but want to remain in the European Union, which dictates 80% of the law. Nuts. So don’t expect rational thought when it comes to energy. Alec Salmond believes Scotland can have 100% “renewable” energy. I don’t see the electric lorries supplying the remote communities in the HIghlands and Islands anytime soon.
‘S e amadan a th’ann
( Gàidhlig for “He’s a fool”. I don’t think Alec can speak anything but the English foreign tongue, certainly not the native Scots Gàidhlig.)

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 4, 2015 4:08 am

@ david smith
Ludwig von Mises covered socialism a long time ago. I think that you should tell the students that they should read the following:

david smith
Reply to  markstoval
July 4, 2015 6:29 am

Many thanks. That’s my Sunday afternoon spoken for!

Rational Db8
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 5, 2015 1:56 pm

Weren’t there a number of articles a few years back proving that the BBC has a heavy vested interest in AGW panning out, because they or their top executives (board of directors?) had significant investments in “green energy” concerns?

Rational Db8
Reply to  Rational Db8
July 5, 2015 2:30 pm

Or maybe I’m confusing the “green” investments of the members of one of the ClimateGate ostensibly “independent” reviews that wasn’t anything of the sort and BBC has nothing to do with it?

M Courtney
July 3, 2015 10:55 am

It’s worth remembering that Roger Harrabin – employed by the BBC – is not a journalist. He’s a propagandist.
The evidence?
Roger Harrabin got the Climategate emails first. The biggest scoop in the history of Environmental Journalism. They made this site.
But Roger Harrabin suppressed them.
Regardless of their opinion about climate sensitivity a real journalist would have reported the news.
But he didn’t. And the BBC didn’t sack him.

Peter Miller
Reply to  M Courtney
July 3, 2015 11:16 am

That is something I did not know.
Suppress the facts, spread the alarm – that is the BBC’s and Australia’s ABC’s official policy on climate.
Well, it is not long now before the lights start going out in the UK winters, when they are at their harshest. I am wondering how the BBC will spin this, I guess by complaining that it was not the right type of high pressure system, so therefore it was not the right type of wind.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  M Courtney
July 3, 2015 11:18 am

At the time, I emailed them and asked why they hadn’t reported it, and they said it was because the emails had been obtained illegally. One can only guess what the BBC would do if it got hold of illegally-obtained emails which suggested WUWT got secret funding from ‘big oil’!

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 3, 2015 11:29 am

Funny how it doesn’t stop the BBC reporting on Edward Snowden and the like!

Rational Db8
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 5, 2015 2:33 pm

It’s also interesting that they would even make such a claim, since at the time there was no way to tell if they were gotten legally or not (e.g., by an inside whistleblower or by being left on an ftp server open to the public, etc.)

Reply to  M Courtney
July 3, 2015 11:21 am

the BBC is known for its lack of commercial sense, its presenters and programme makers are allowed to be self indulgent, arrogant and very opinionated without having to worry too much what people think outside of their own echo chambers. Not one will give a hoot what we think here.
I soooooo wish them the very best of luck with the charter renewal coming up soon (NOT!)

Mike Bromley the Kurd
July 3, 2015 10:56 am

Schmidt’s reference list is awfully thin.

July 3, 2015 11:02 am

What is most odd to me is that these people continue to speak as though there was even a shred of confirmation that CAGW is based on reality.
The models have failed, there has been 18 plus years of no warming despite rising CO2 levels, storms and extreme weather are no more frequent than they were in the past, and in fact seem to be becoming less frequent, ocean acidification is not based on reality, and even the terminology used is based on fake science.
Looking through hundreds of millions of years of the geologic record and picking out some unusual circumstance, while ignoring reams and reams of data which proved that CAGW cannot happen, is just plain idiotic.
If we’re going to look at the geologic record for clues as to the effects of high levels of co2 on ocean life, how can anyone possibly ignore levels 10 times higher which existed for millions and millions of years and had no ill effects on ocean life?

Billy Liar
Reply to  menicholas
July 3, 2015 12:04 pm

The point is that governments are still buying the science they want via the their research funding organzations and thus it doesn’t really matter what reality does. The scientists would rather have the cash than research reality.

Reply to  menicholas
July 3, 2015 11:26 pm

Agreed, but the facts don’t matter. Only the narrative is important.

Reply to  Tim
July 4, 2015 3:10 pm

Only the MONEY is important.
Does that help?
Clarify a little?
It is the big thing . . .
Watermelons ant to spend your money.
At the moment there is a crisis, as the Socialists have run out of other peoples’ money.
Oh – “Sugar”, if I heard correctly.
So carbon taxes and fines, and duties and indulgencies will help the watermelons get hold of [MUCH] more of your money.

Climate Pete
Reply to  menicholas
July 5, 2015 3:09 am

Look at the ocean heat content figures from NOAA. They show that the earth’s energy imbalance continues. The positive radiative forcing figure has not disappeared. Whether there has been surface warming or not, the oceans continue to warm big time, and it is only a matter of random processes before a larger proportion of the incoming heat starts to warm the surface again.
Further the only temperature data sets showing no warming are RSS and UAH 6.0, both of which have a very small surface temperature component added into their lower tropospheric data sets. UAH (with much higher surface component) showed plenty of warming over the last 18 years, which his presumably why John Christie decided to lower the surface component in it.
So the fact now is that both current satellite data sets do not measure surface temperatures in any meaningful way. That leaves the standard surface temperature data sets, all of which show significant warming over the last 18 years.
The case for saying “no warming over 18 years” has just got a lot weaker, because of Christie’s deliberate messing with the weightings.

Climate Pete
Reply to  Climate Pete
July 5, 2015 3:10 am

UAH 5.6 (with much higher surface component) showed plenty of warming over the last 18 years….

Jaime Jessop
Reply to  Climate Pete
July 8, 2015 8:20 am

“So the fact now is that both current satellite data sets do not measure surface temperatures in any meaningful way.”
I don’t remember anybody levelling this criticism of the LT satellite datasets when they matched quite closely the surface datasets from 1979, the only major divergences being when they actually overstated warming during the strong El Nino years 82/83 and 97/98 – an expected result of the natural El Nino signal being amplified in the lower troposphere. Only after 1998 do the surface and satellite datsets diverge significantly. This may be a natural consequence of the general predominance of La Nina like conditions in the 21st Century – or it may be as a result of significant adjustments to the surface datasets which have, for example, seen the modest 2010 El Nino warmth eclipse the 1998 super El Nino warming spike.

July 3, 2015 11:05 am

Yea, Harrabin was at news24.
I like the man, makes me laugh, he is a rare presenter who can say lot of nonsense with a strait face. .

July 3, 2015 11:07 am

“My children will be alive in 2100. I would like them to be able to swim above a coral reef and enjoy its beauty.”
They’ll be over 85. You really think they’re going to be swimming out in the oceans pushing 90?
And doesn’t the idea that they’re going to be living this long contradict all the environmental alarmism? How does this work? There will be enormous doubleplus ungood environmental damage, causing no end of health consequences, and they’ll be swimming in their 90s?

Reply to  Harold
July 3, 2015 11:51 am

Why not. Much is improving in this world, not only the climate, and advances in stem cell therapy and genetics may very well extend the lives of generations to come significantly.

Billy Liar
Reply to  Harold
July 3, 2015 12:07 pm

If ‘the children’ is the best argument she’s got she’s going into my ‘ignore’ category.

Richard of NZ
Reply to  Harold
July 3, 2015 1:31 pm

Perhaps more the point, this is the first time in human history where there is a reasonable expectation of children living to be aged 85 or older. Even the Biblical three score years and ten was wishful thinking up to a very few years ago. The reason for this extended life, fossil fuel energy.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Richard of NZ
July 3, 2015 1:50 pm

So by wanting to limit the use of fossil fuel then her children will live shorter lives all in the name of ‘progress’ that is regressive.

Climate Pete
Reply to  Richard of NZ
July 5, 2015 3:30 am

More like better health care and sanitation – but only among those countries able to afford it. Fossil fuel energy is cheap in China and 350,000 – 600,000 people die each year from air pollution, depending on what study you take. Some health benefit!!
You can have too much of a good thing, and that is the stage we have now reached with fossil fuels.
And as Shiek Yamani once said, “The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones”
Time to move to renewables. And by 2050 there’s no doubt that power from wind and solar photovoltaic will be much cheaper than the fuel costs alone of fossil fuel power generation. I say no doubt because it is already happening for wind power in the US interior, and the CEO of First Solar is predicting solar PV electricity prices starting with a “3” by 2025 – http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/First-Solar-CEO-By-2017-Well-be-Under-1.00-Per-Watt-Fully-Installed

Rational Db8
Reply to  Richard of NZ
July 5, 2015 2:40 pm

@Climate Pete
My dear, just what do you think creates and powers that “better health care” and “sanitation?” Without cheap abundant reliable energy – e.g., fossil fuels – you have NONE of that.
As to China, I guess clearly you preferred when they had millions dying from starvation. Again, having cheap, reliable, abundant energy along with starting to allow some free market/capitalistic principles in, is what has drastically improved the general standard of living in China.

Climate Pete
Reply to  Harold
July 5, 2015 3:18 am

http://triblive.com/sports/otherlocal/8380515-74/menges-swimming-ymca#axzz3f0j75jwz (look for the hot competition and rule infringements on the turns by Menges in the 85-89 category plus the attendance at the meet of two women in their 90s)
And 85 will be the new 65 by 2100.

Bruce Cobb
July 3, 2015 11:09 am

Their fixation on the PETM borders on obsession. It’s total whackiness. That time period, some 56mya can not be compared to today’s climate.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 3, 2015 11:34 am

Indeed it cannot. It’s ludicrous to try to do so.
The PETM came at the end of tens of millions of years of elevated temperatures, the highest of the Phanerozoic (past 543 million years), with the possible exception of a brief interval at the Permian-Triassic Periods and Paleozoic-Mesozoic Eras transition some 250 million years ago.
By contrast, the earth has now suffered a secular cooling trend for tens of millions of years, with Antarctic ice sheets for over 30 million years and extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciations for going on three million. The Pleistocene was as cold as any epoch of the Phanerozoic, to include the frigid conditions of the Carboniferous-Permian glaciation, c. 360 to 260 million years ago. Our current interglacial, the Holocene, has been cooler than the preceding Eemian and other previous such brief warmer spells.

July 3, 2015 11:29 am

This is what happens when we allow subjective politics to dictate objective science. Once partisan politics chooses sides, the first casualty is always objectivity. The scientific method as it applies to climate science was replaced by political correctness conforming to the green narrative at about the same time the IPCC was formed. It should be an embarrassment to all scientists that this was allowed to occur.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 4, 2015 3:11 pm

I don’t blame all scientists and don’t think those that are working hard to produce good science need be embarrassed about anything. Only the ones that lie, cheat, subvert, and do obviously bad science, should have their feet held to the fire and never be taken seriously again. And then we have the institutions which gave them their positions. The Universities which allow those which are an embarrassment to remain and empower them. How should they be treated?

Climate Pete
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 5, 2015 3:38 am

Climate science is above politics. You can see that from the clear scientific consensus among climate science experts (i.e. those who have published in scientific journals on climate science).
It is only some factions among the US, Canadian and Australian right wing political parties that politicised climate science, mostly as a result of fossil fuel money funding campaign contributions and setting up huge numbers of right-wing think tanks. And the scientists working for those think tanks are generally the same ones who acted as consultants for the tobacco industry which wanted to propagate the myth that smoking did not cause lung cancer – even though their own internal documents showed they were well aware that it did.
Climate science was confidently expecting the earth to warm somewhat from human CO2 emissions long before the IPCC was ever formed. Arrhenius predicted it well over 100 years ago. It was only when it was measurably happening and it was clear that something had to be done about it that the politicisation started. Read Naomi Oreskes “Merchants of Doubt” for full details.

Reply to  Climate Pete
July 5, 2015 8:28 am

Really Pete?
Exactly how much of that warming has been PROVEN to be due to mans activities and what forcings are causing it?
And why is Arctic sea ice extent within 2 standard deviations of the mean tracking higher when it was supposed to have been virtually ice free by now according to many “experts”?
And why is Antarctic sea ice is tracking just under last years record highs when it too was supposed to decline?
And why is it that the Atlantic Hurricane seasons over the last few years have been had well below average incidence and severity when some experts told us that we would see an increased in severity because of climate change?
And why has Tornado incidence been relatively low for the last three years when many climate “experts” told us it would increase due to climate change?
And why are wild fires and drought well within or under historic averages when we were told by experts both would increase due to climate change?
And exactly where are those hot spots in the upper troposphere that were supposed to be present due to increasing atmospheric CO2?
Answer those questions and I’ll have some more since you obviously have all the answers. I really want to know!

Reply to  Climate Pete
July 5, 2015 8:40 am

Climate Pete,
You hit the nail on the head. The problem is that so many people are not paying attention and believe that climate science is above politics, when in fact, its the most politically divisive science I’ve ever seen. Science should be objective, but with the formation of the IPCC, science was stealthy replaced with conformance to political agendas which is as unobjective as you can get. What comes with partisan politics is that those who identify with a political party allow that party to think for them and refuse to take an opposing position even in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
Yes, partisan politics has a role and I blame the right for enabling the left to make this so political as much as I blame the left for choosing the sloppy science just because it supports the green agenda, much of which is unsupportable without CAGW.

Reply to  Climate Pete
July 5, 2015 8:45 am

rah: “how much of that warming has been PROVEN…” Things in science are never proven. If you want proof, study math. In science, it’s more like “best guess wins”
Also…Arctic sea ice has been tracking close to 2 standard deviations BELOW the mean for the past half dozen years or so.

Reply to  Climate Pete
July 5, 2015 10:59 am

Joel D. Jackson
So there is no proof of man caused warming and the consensus meant nothing. Thank you! And by they way for their never being proof in science an awful lot of scientist sure use that word even in “peer reviewed” papers.
As for your claim that “Arctic sea ice has been tracking close to 2 standard deviations BELOW the mean for the past half dozen years or so does not address the FACT that RIGHT NOW It’s just under 1 standard deviation!
Sea Ice Extent – Day 185 – Arctic within 95,000 of 1 STD – Antarctic 3rd Highest – Global 11th Highest For This Day https://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2015/07/05/sea-ice-extent-day-185-arctic-within-95000-of-1-std-antarctic-3rd-highest-global-11th-highest-for-this-day/
And is running at it’s highest extent since 2005 http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
Thus PROOF that the “death spiral” predicted by multiple experts to be imminent years ago, has not happened and there is no physical evidence it will.
In fact I can’t seem to find one single physical change to the climate that was predicted by the climate experts that has manifested to the extent of magnitude claimed. Can you?

Reply to  Climate Pete
July 6, 2015 5:01 am

Climate Pete wrote: “mostly as a result of fossil fuel money funding campaign contributions and setting up huge numbers of right-wing think tanks. And the scientists working for those think tanks are generally the same ones who acted as consultants for the tobacco industry . . . . Read Naomi Oreskes “Merchants of Doubt” for full details.”
Name the think tanks that have been “set up” by fossil fuel money. It should be easy, since there were “huge numbers” of them.
As for your “the scientists working for those think tanks are generally the same ones who acted as consultants for the tobacco industry,” that implies that there must be score of those former tobacco-defenders employed now, given the huge numbers of right-wing think tanks set up. From what I recall of Oreskes’ book, only four tobacco defenders were named, two of whom are dead, and the others quite old. Assuming there are at least 100 scientists employed by right-wing think tanks, which is implicit in your claim, it’s unlikely that more than 5% of them were tobacco defenders, given how long ago that controversy happened.
Oreskes’ book has been given a going-over here. Put her name in the search box for full details.

Reply to  Climate Pete
July 6, 2015 5:04 am

“Climate science is above politics. You can see that from the clear scientific consensus among climate science experts ”
You could say as much for Lyseko-ism or Freudianism.

Reply to  Climate Pete
July 6, 2015 7:03 am

“Climate science is above politics. You can see that from the clear scientific consensus among climate science experts ”
You could also say the same about the nutritional consensus–but it was in fact enforced by the politics of enforced groupthink and exclusion of contrarians.

July 3, 2015 11:30 am

“My children will be alive in 2100″…
Data-deniers! Bent on returning the world to the stone age, where the average life span is 35 …..Not.going.To. Happen..

Margaret Smith
Reply to  upcountrywater
July 3, 2015 7:46 pm

“where the average life span is 35 ”
Not so sure about this. If people got beyond childhood and teens they tended to reach their 60s and 70s. The Bible allowed them three score years and ten. It was the very high infant and child mortality rate that pulled the average down.

Reply to  Margaret Smith
July 4, 2015 5:52 am

Not true; look at the English peerage in the Middle Ages.

K. Kilty
Reply to  Margaret Smith
July 4, 2015 8:17 am

You say exactly what upcountry says, but arguing against what they say?

July 3, 2015 11:36 am

New York Times Friday Morning:
BBC to Cut 1,000 Jobs as License Revenue Falls Short.
It seems people are going to free online devices and programming to get the real news and entertainment.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  Dale Hartz
July 3, 2015 1:14 pm

Yes, our home is one that gave up paying the licence fee 18 months ago. We stopped watching any BBC news anyway, as it was/is a joke. BBC have apparently lost £150,000,000 from people like me, and have been “surprised” by the number giving up watching live TV. Well, BBC, it’s because you are full of crap.

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 3, 2015 4:29 pm

Big Jim,
While we in Aus do not pay a license fee to watch our public funded ABC, its interesting to note the correlation of viewer drop offs due to the bile being pumped out by this mob. Like your BBC, the general public has had enough of the leftist crap pushed onto them and are moving to Net Flix or other forms of pay tv to get unbiased information.

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 3, 2015 8:05 pm

It is not just BBC or the ABC, it is the obviously left leaning media in general. eg fairfax here in australia went to the floor in the gfc, but it never recovered. it is just worthless stock now. people are just not interested in the leftist twaddle any more. for media companies to survive, they need to rein in their staffs naturally left views or attempt to find the very few centrists that want to exist in the media and hire them. it is so pathetically unbalanced now that anyone who presents a centrist view is ‘right wing’ according to the rest of the media.

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 3, 2015 11:37 pm

Craig, while we here in Aus do not pay a fee (TV License – GBP145.50 I think now) like in the UK, which amounts to a tax, we still pay tax to Govn’t which goes into the consolidated fund, which then funds ABC/SBS “services” (Propaganda).

Rob M
Reply to  Dale Hartz
July 3, 2015 1:47 pm

……with,I suspect,the emphasis on the “free”,rather than the “real”.
I have been on an internet forum where one regular poster watches a particular BBC show by means of the BBC’s Iplayer online catch-up service.This obviates the need for a TV license.

Silver ralph
Reply to  Dale Hartz
July 3, 2015 3:02 pm

I have not paid the BBC licence fee for 10 years. They kept sending reminders and threats for a few years, and then gave up. I just say the TV was thrown in the bin, in disgust at BBC output.
I refuse to give any money to a corrupt organisation that hates its own culture and its own people, let alone trying to reduce us to some fantasy Socialist nirvana via it lies and propaganda. The BBC needs terminating, with immediate effect.

UK Sceptic
July 3, 2015 11:38 am

Strange then that the white cliffs of Dover, formed from sediments made up of countless trillions of calcium carbonate shells of dead coccoliths, were laid down in warmer climes (the Cretacious).

Reply to  UK Sceptic
July 4, 2015 2:08 pm

Indeed, during which time atmospheric CO2 was consistently > 1000ppm. How could that happen?

Reply to  UK Sceptic
July 5, 2015 2:05 am

And used to extend all the way to Poole or more. In fact there was no water between the Isle of Wight and the mainland once. Most of it has been washed away!

July 3, 2015 11:44 am

I remember a court case where a doctor gave a testimony that later was deemed so bluntly wrong that this doctor lost his licence. Sorry, I no longer remember his name but it had to do with sudden infant death and Munchausen by proxy syndrome.
Clearly, this seems as something that easily should be examined by a prosecutor if the scientist in question receives any government funds (which seems like a no-brainer). She is saying one thing to the public to put pressure on the politicians using while clearly knowing that to be false.

Reply to  Londo
July 3, 2015 11:49 am

Sorry for replying to my on post but I was wrong about that he was forced to give up his license. Details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Meadow

Felix Jury
Reply to  Londo
July 3, 2015 11:54 pm

Londo , you are very observant , a N.Z. Dr Sprott ,a real scientist , discovered that SIDS was caused by a very lethal gas that is formed by the retardant that is used to stop these mattresses burning .
He came up with a very simple solution to prevent babies dying by covering all baby mattresses with plastic cover and there has never been case of a baby dying on a plastic covered mattress .
These mattresses formed a bacteria that combined with the fire retardant to give off a very potent gas .
You would think this would be the end of it but oh no the medical folk got really upset over his discovery along with a English chappy and rejected his findings .

Rational Db8
Reply to  Londo
July 5, 2015 2:55 pm

@felix jury
I don’t buy that at all. First, at least here in the USA, most if not all crib mattresses are plastic covered and have been for a long time (who wants baby urine on a mattress if the diaper leaks? or drool, or spit up, etc?) – there are still SIDS deaths. Next, you’re asking us to believe that doctors would rather babies die than suggest placing a cheap plastic cover on mattresses. What possible benefit is there to that for the doctors? Sorry, but this claim just makes no sense.

Reply to  Londo
July 3, 2015 6:03 pm

The Prof of paediatrics who said “to lose one child (to sid) is unfortunate, to lose two is murder”?

Jeremy Shiers
Reply to  Sleepalot
July 4, 2015 3:49 am

Meadow was giving witness as an expert pediatrician.
When he voiced his opinions on statistics he strayed into an area in which he was not an expert.
Clearly Meadow was wrong, both in statistics and in helping to convict someone who was later found to be innocent,
he was part of a judicial process. I have always thought the lawyers and especially the judge were at fault for allowing someone to give ‘expert testimony’ on something they weren’t an expert in.
It’s not just my view, the Royal Society of Statistics pointed out errors in his evidence at the time.

July 3, 2015 12:09 pm

CBC the Canadian version of BBC and ABC funded the same way and is also pumping out the climate propaganda. Here it is for two reasons, the Paris summit and an upcoming federal election. Conservatives are lukewarmers and a perceived threat to CBC funding so the taxpayered funded CBC is ramping up anticonservatism.

Ted G
July 3, 2015 12:30 pm

I grew up in England, as a kid from a working class family, the BBC was was despised by 99% of my family, friends and most of the UK population. Forcing their elite toffy nosed point of view, rationing popular music ie: Elvis. R&B, Beatles, Stones etc.. to a handful of hours a week. Limiting the competition through influencing stupid toffy nosed politicians. Then came the pirate ships – Radio Caroline – Radio London Etc..= Great times in England. The BBC and the ruling class went Bananas. Eventually they sent troops and Police to arrest and shut down those beloved Pirate ship radio stations. And insult to injury Jacked up the mandery radio and TV Licensing fees. I have traveled and lived in many countries since and had a great life. but I still despised the mentality that breed in the BBC and all public broadcasters throughout the western world. to a man they all promote the Global warming agenda and socialism . It’s sickening.
PS. I am a free enterprise, free thinking soul, England you taught me well!

Rob M
Reply to  Ted G
July 3, 2015 2:09 pm

Only half an hour for “The Organist Entertains” is a sore point with my old man.
Can’t say I’ve met anybody who despised the Beeb,though.

Ted G
Reply to  Rob M
July 5, 2015 1:46 pm

Were you in the UK in the 50s and 60s? Did you try to listen to Radio Luxembourg for popular and rock music? it faded in and out due to atmospherics, meanwhile the BBC droned with Organ recitals, leftists verbiage and programing that most Brits disliked (Despised) I was there and like so many ex pats who couldn’t wait to get out of there (the brain drain), the environment was stifling. I love the UK but I would never choose to live there. The Old BBC was dragged kicking and screaming into a new reality, namely the people want to hear and see what they want, when they want it. But the Mind set that poisoned the well at the BBC is still there. Thus a political and climate agenda that most Brits don’t agree with. Let the BBC and all public broadcasters everywhere stand on their on 2 feet, If the programming is worthy, interesting and entertaining, it will survive!
PS -There is a lot great programing out of the BBC and the other UK broadcasters, that I and many people around the world love. BUT the BBC politics Stinks!

Climate Pete
Reply to  Ted G
July 5, 2015 4:31 am

The BBC talk about climate change as established science because it is, and has been for a considerable period of time before the fossil fuel companies tried to politicise it with a measure of success. The BBC has a responsibility to report science facts as such.
Following a discussion between Brian Hoskyns and Nigel Lawson on BBC radio 4, the BBC changed its strategy of how to provide balance on AGW. Instead of having only items such as Hoskyns/Lawson with one climate scientist and one climate contrarian, it decided that balance meant a better reflection of the predominant views of the climate science experts, and a much less frequent platform for the climate contrarians.
As a result of Hoskyns / Lawson, the BBC realised that the climate were primarily looking for PR opportunities to cast emotional and political doubt on the scientific consensus. The BBC decided that it did not have a responsibility to provide contrarians with equal air time for political purpose masquerading as science.
This new method of providing balance applies to science topics, not political topics. AGW is about science and the new policy applies to this.
Basically, by being so overtly political and ignoring established science in what was supposed to be a debate on the science, Lawson has blown it as far as free air time for his cause goes. And a number of foreign broadcasters are following suit on this.
By contrast, the political debate as to what to do about AGW would not fall under these rules as it is primarily a political decision. For instance the conservative party has decided to de-emphasise onshore wing, which means the UK will be spending on more expensive offshore wind instead. This is a valid political decision, given that not everyone wants 6MW onshore wind turbines nearly the size of the Shard in their rural eyelines.
Various links available from here – https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/a-quick-science-lesson-for-lord-lawson/

Rational Db8
Reply to  Climate Pete
July 5, 2015 2:57 pm

You’re so blatantly brainwashed there’s no point in even replying to your misguided claims.

Ian Macdonald
July 3, 2015 12:46 pm

The idea of carbonic acid dissolving things sounds plausible until you recall that coral is made of calcium carbonate, which is itself a product of the action of carbonic acid on calcium-bearing minerals.
It now starts to sound highly implausible.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
July 3, 2015 12:55 pm

Might add that saturated carbonic acid can turn calcium carbonate into soluble calcium bicarbonate, but that would take a very strong dose of CO2. I doubt very much if that would apply here.

Man Bearpig
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
July 3, 2015 3:16 pm

Perhaps we could run an experiment. Take 2 tanks of brine and subject 1 to high levels of co2 and measure pH changes. Then the comparison between the two can be made. I think Anthony has a CO2 meter knocking around somwhere.

Dr T G Watkins
July 3, 2015 12:50 pm

Ted G – well said – and interestingly the Aussie ABC follows in its parent’s footsteps whether it be CAGW, socialist leanings and championing multiculturism. Neither reflects the views of the majority that pays for them but only the views of the chattering middle class socialists who refuse to understand that government(s) have no money.

Louis Hunt
July 3, 2015 1:16 pm

“My children will be alive in 2100. I would like them to be able to swim above a coral reef and enjoy its beauty.”

Professor Daniela Schmidt apparently doesn’t buy into the notion that climate change is going to doom us all, or even shorten our lifespan, if she thinks her children will still be alive 85 years from now. But beside that, what does she have against coral reefs? Doesn’t she know that the sunscreen her children wear while swimming can be harmful to corals?

“Four common sunscreen components can activate dormant viruses in coral’s symbiotic algae, known as zooxanthellae, that live within the reef’s tissues. The UV filters implicated are butylparaben, ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate, benzophenone-3 and 4-methylbenzylidene camphor. These ingredients, commonly found in many chemical sunscreens, are touted to cause complete coral bleaching at very low concentrations.
These sunblock chemicals stimulate viral replication until coral’s zooxanthallae explore, releasing viruses into the surrounding seawater, where they can infect neighboring coral reef systems. Claims have been made that about 4,000 to 6,000 metric tons of sunblock from swimmers wash-off into the world’s oceans annually, and that up to 10% of coral reefs are threatened by sunscreen-induced bleaching.”
Also of note, R. Danovara et. al found that the coral bleaching effect was not dose-dependent, so reefs exposed even to very small concentrations of sunscreen are at risk. — http://scubadiverlife.com/

July 3, 2015 1:39 pm

Well, after all the UK is vying to be more Soviet than the EU (which is really the GU as in Germanic Union, a much more ambitious version of the 1871 Kleindeutsche Lösung/Lesser Germany) than Greece; who the EU wants to punish for something that Merkel (EU Emperor) will eventually invent out of thin air late one sleepless night after the beer and vodka runs out and inform the world the next morning that Greece is guilty of it.
Ha ha

Chris Lynch
July 3, 2015 2:21 pm

The BBC and the rest of the media in the UK and Ireland are presently hyping the daylights out of a four day heatwave which is now dissipating. Their anxiety to do so is hardly surprising given how downright below average the summer has been in the British Isles up to this point.

July 3, 2015 3:09 pm

“Denaturalize”? Doesn’t she mean “denature –AGF

July 3, 2015 3:12 pm

“Denaturalize”? Doesn’t she mean “denature”? –AGF

Charles Nelson
July 3, 2015 4:00 pm

Defund…The BBC.
Every innocent person in the uk who owns a screen capable of receiving TV is forced by CRIMINAL LAW to pay for this!!!!

Rob M
Reply to  Charles Nelson
July 3, 2015 6:16 pm

Not quite.
My parents,aged 89 and 86,are not required to buy a license.

July 3, 2015 4:17 pm

M Courtney –
did you mean to say Paul Hudson, whose BBC write-up “Whatever happened to Global Warming?” was published just prior to the release of the Climategate emails & was discussed in the emails by The Team?
27 Nov 2009: Hull Daily Mail: BBC wetherman in global warming row
A BBC Look North weatherman has become embroiled in a national global warming row.
Speaking on his Internet blog, Paul Hudson claimed documents allegedly sent between some of the world’s leading scientists – which discuss how to “spin” climate data – were the result of an article he had written…
Mr Hudson – familiar to East Yorkshire viewers for his light-hearted banter with Look North presenter Peter Levy – wrote: “I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on October 23, which are comments from some of the world’s leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article Whatever Happened To Global Warming.
“The e-mails released on the Internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as I can see, they are authentic.”
Mr Hudson’s online essay, written last month, argued that for the past 11 years there had not been an increase in global temperatures.
It also presented counter-arguments to the belief man’s actions are warming the planet…
When contacted by the Mail, the weatherman said he was not allowed to comment and asked us to speak to the BBC press office…

M Courtney
Reply to  pat
July 4, 2015 10:10 am

I’m sure I read somewhere that he passed it on to Roger Harrabin as it was above his pay grade, so to speak.
And also that RealClimate confirmed authenticity of the hack to the BBC early.
As they were sent the emails first.
But I might be wrong.

July 3, 2015 4:35 pm

Science is by definition falsifiable. The main ideas of climatology are not falsifiable. Hence climatology is not science. Do not expect to find science in climatology.

Climate Pete
Reply to  ztabc
July 5, 2015 4:42 am

That is rubbish. There’s a body of published research behind climatology, and if the preponderance of it showed something different to the current consensus then the current consensus would be different.
The fact is, however, that the climate signal (AGW) is weak over the short term, and the noise (weather) is strong. That means that you have to adopt some sophisticated techniques such as Bayesian probability, in order to tease the two apart in the short term. Over the long term it is much easier.
The difference is that weather has random and large effects, but about a mean of zero, whereas AGW has a small effect, but, given the current CO2 emissions levels, always in the same direction.
The easiest way to see AGW without the noise inherent in surface temperatures is to look at the NOAA Ocean Heat Content charts since the Argo floats started patrolling the oceans early this century. Virtually all the excess heat at the top of the atmosphere ends up in the oceans, and you can see a steady buildup since the dawn of Argo.
If you want to improve your understanding of signal and noise then read Nate Silver’s excellent book “The signal and the noise” which is also a really good read. Otherwise get yourself educated on climate science – there are a number of good, free, online courses (MOOC’s) available.

July 3, 2015 10:09 pm

We don’t even have any proof that the ocean was more acidic at the time, its all conjecture about CO2. Global warming is ALL CONJECTURE ABOUT CO2.
Seriously, the deeper you go

July 4, 2015 12:14 am

I live in Somerset, where we seem to have recently found ourselves to have been on the receiving end of a concerted campaign of disinformation.
Primarily conducted by the BBC, the Guardian, Bristol University and the Royal Society.
There was severe flooding in 2011/2012 and 2012/2013. Such that if you look back at this topic you can find records of the discussion of the urgent need for action, back in 2013.
And you can find warnings that if action was not taken then 2013/2014 could be even worse. Exacerbated by high rainfall, the following winter turned out to be the horror story that the “climate change” obsessed media craved.
BUT, if the weather was to blame, then how and why were people predicting this event with clarity in advance? I even found an article from 2013 in which Glastonbury Festival founder, Michael Eavis was warning of the disaster to come the following winter.
Locally, interested and informed people have been quite well acquainted with the causes of this year-on-year increased flooding. The cause was the total suspension 20 years ago of the formerly continual silt removal works on the main man-made channels.
This is understood quite well by local drainage engineers, but sadly, due to the campaign of disinformation created by the usual leftist suspects, we have not been able to shine a clear light on the topic and bring about a return to the “good old days” when the drainage system was continually maintained according to it’s earlier specifications.
When you know the truth about a topic, quite intimately, it is a galling experience to discover that you are on the receiving end of lying, manipulation and propaganda.
It is also remarkable that there are now so many ideologically motivated “experts for hire”, who will fit their presentations around a pre-conceived agenda.
And if the situation is this bad in relation to a relatively simple topic in a modern western nation, then can we trust anything whatsoever that the leftist media has to say about any topic?
When often the topic is complex or the location of the events are inaccessible.
I pity the people of the developing world, if they are subject to this “tyranny of experts” from leftist NGO’s and meddling eco-warrior do-gooders.
In my view, such people are monsters who must somehow be stopped from spending other people’s money and destroying other people’s lives.
Apologies for my utter cynicism. But this is what I have seen and I now can not un-see it.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
July 4, 2015 3:25 pm

froggy old soul
We know.
We agree.
We fight it – as best we can.
Thanks for your heart-felt missive – all plainly true.
But ‘THEY’ do not really want to know.
Same with other shortcomings – defence, adoption, justice/prevention of crime, the NHS for goodness sake!
Yours indefatigably –

James Francisco
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
July 5, 2015 10:16 am

Indefatigablefrog, I have had similar experiences with the news. I just tune in to find out about large disasters. Kinda hard to put spin on volcanos and such. One interesting thing that I noticed in my world of aircraft repair is the errors and omission of important details when malfunctions were reported by pilots and technicians. They were trying to get it right. It is possible that some of the reporting errors are just errors but I’m pretty sure the errors are very few.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
July 6, 2015 7:20 am

I’ve read that the reason silt dredging was suspended was that EU rules forbad its being used as a soil topping in agriculture or being dumped offshore, unless it had been purified.

M Seward
July 4, 2015 1:24 am

The earth’s crust, while changing over the aeons with tectonic plates shifting and mountains appearing then weathering away and the biosphere going about its business, only contains / conceals an underlying reality of molten sock and who knows what else.
In similar vein the apparent advanced state of human technology these days conceals from immediate recognition the vast depths of human ignorance of science to any depth, leaving the ancient susceptibility to superstition, suggestion, submission to apparent authority and all the other himan weaknesses of the mob well and truly intact and fully functioning.
The only difference now is that the alpha type personalities, all the way up to the psychopaths and sociopaths, who have for so long used superstion, race and religion, now invoke ‘science’ and ‘reason’ as a device in their fear and hate mongering. Of course what is actually peddled is utterly distorted from the rational output of scientific enquiry into a bastardised, distorted, fraudulent synthesis sprinkled with ‘sciency’ terms for effect.

Reply to  M Seward
July 4, 2015 3:27 pm

Mods – please – third line – molten rock, I think, not ‘sock’ . . .

July 4, 2015 3:08 am

A couple of weeks ago i was in Southern Spain, they have sophisticated sensors in the Mediterranean just off the coast, which measure temperature and pH. The pH was 8.4 which is alkaline and not just slightly so!
As other people have said, we are being subjected to propaganda which at its best is misleading and at its worst, lies.

July 4, 2015 5:47 am

I have the question why scientists who ostensibly favor reason and evidence fall prey to delusional visions of the end times as easily as fundamental evangelists who of course require no reason and evidence other than their beliefs?

Rational Db8
Reply to  Alx
July 5, 2015 3:03 pm

It’s innate human nature to worry about possible doom in the future. Some fixate more than others.

July 4, 2015 6:12 am

Don’t crayfish live in lakes and streams? Did she mean she wanted.her kids to eat lobster? Crayfish can already live in very varied water temps. The ones in central park New York have to live in conditions rangimg from 32 – 80 degrees F.

July 4, 2015 11:18 am

Correction of title ought to have been Science say one thing – so called scientists an other. So called are all calling themselves scientists trying their best to avoid Theories of Science…..

July 4, 2015 1:54 pm

I’m reading a cartoon from the Colorado Springs Independent, They’ve linked racism, ownership of guns, killings in Charleston, AND denial of global warming to apparently the same subset of people. I’m married to an Asian ( I’ve been told I’m still a racist though), don’t own a gun (maybe I should), had nothing to do with Charleston or the mass killings in Syria…. tsk, tsk….. I’m a critic of global warming. I guess that makes me ignorant and stupid regardless of the science. Let’s say I don’t believe, key word ‘believe’ , the politically correct science. It’s a “Confederacy of Denial”. I’ll have to go to North Korea where hardly is heard a dissenting word, and the skies are not cloudy all day… We have to do it for the children!!!!! They won’t know what snow looks like or eat shellfish, OMG, this is horrible!!! ( sarc just in case)

Climate Pete
Reply to  rishrac
July 5, 2015 5:02 am

If you want to understand the conservative-hierarchical-individualistic effect better, here’s a good starting link – http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/6/10/what-are-fearless-white-hierarchical-individualist-males-afr.html .
Incidentally, I’ve not come across “racism” as one of the characteristics of the conservative-hierarchical-individualistic effect, but certainly opposition to gun control and AGW are defining characteristics. Most likely racism is more evenly distributed in the population than in just one particular cultural grouping.
The conservative-hierarchical-individualistic effect is an example of “identity protective cognition”, describing the tendency of people to fit their perceptions of risk (and related facts) to ones that reflect and reinforce their connection to important affinity groups, membership in which confers emotional, and material benefits.

Reply to  Climate Pete
July 5, 2015 8:47 am

If you’d like to understand the left and how it supports CAGW, you should read Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Reply to  Climate Pete
July 8, 2015 12:00 pm

I understand it perfectly. The term denier is directly tied to the holocaust. It’s pure propaganda. It’s just another in a long list of tactics to silence anybody that disagrees with the religion of AGW on any grounds, up to and including criminalizing any evidence that contradicts AGW on the basis of future massive deaths. ( Which should have occurred already and hasn’t)

David Cage
July 5, 2015 8:37 am

The BBC would be well advised to stop and reconsider this blatant brainwashing. For years people, mainly women have been sent to prison for failing to pay their licence fee. It is highly questionable whether the human rights laws permits a person to be brainwashed at their own expense under threat of imprisonment and if someone decides to use this defence and wins, the compensation bills will certainly be the end of the BBC as it stands.
While the aristocracy, the politocracy , the literati and the gliterati all support the climate change cult it is increasingly being questioned by the majority and no longer just by the tiny technologically elite minority with an education superior to that of the climate scientists. This factor is also important for the future well being of its income.

Climate Pete
Reply to  David Cage
July 5, 2015 1:16 pm

You don’t have to receive live TV broadcasts and therefore do not have to pay the license fee. If you only ever access programmes time shifted on the Internet you do not need a license.
And concern for climate change are considerably more widespread, even in USA and UK, than your statement would suggest :comment image

Rational Db8
Reply to  Climate Pete
July 5, 2015 3:11 pm

ROFL! Yeah, now try looking at the same people being asked if they would support paying a little more of their money to try to mitigate it. Answer: NO. Look where their concern for AGW falls on a list of other issues such as jobs, economy, etc. Answer: Near the very bottom. Obviously they’re not very concerned about it at all. What’s more, yougov polls aren’t particularly reliable.

Climate Pete
July 5, 2015 4:14 pm

comment image

Rational Db8
Reply to  Climate Pete
July 5, 2015 5:09 pm

Now actually try reputable polls on the subject. Including the one about if they would pay a few bucks out of their own pockets to support more action (hint, answer: no).

Climate Pete
Reply to  Rational Db8
July 6, 2015 1:44 am

Since units of wind power from the US interior are now cheaper than the fuel costs alone of CCGT gas generation (with some hedging for future prices built in), the American public won’t be put to any noticeable trouble as far as price hikes go.
Abolish all subsidies for fossil fuels (including the hidden subsidy of health care costs for air quality problems caused by coal generation), and you won’t need to pay out a penny to move to renewables.
The CEO of First Solar is saying he does not care now whether the ITC (which soon falls from 30% to 10%) gets renewed back to 30%. He says the 20% tax credit difference is equivalent to only 18 months of natural solar PV price drops, and it has reached the stage where he thinks the solar industry would be better off without it and the political wrangling which goes with it. Plus he thinks by 2025 units of power from solar will be in the range 3 to 3.5 cents / kWh by 2025. More immediately he sees the total capital costs of utility-scale solar PV dropping to $1 per watt by 2017.
Already US utilities are planning to instal wind and solar on the basis they save money overall, while retaining their fossil fuel generation only for the times the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.

Climate Pete
Reply to  Rational Db8
July 6, 2015 1:52 am

Georgetown goes renewables on cost basis alone
They’ve locked in a low power price for the next 20 years – something which the fossil fuel suppliers could not do. Plus they save on water usage.
New Poll Shows Voters Are Ready To Pay To Blunt Climate Change
It seems $20 per month is the going rate that Americans are prepared to pay to blunt climate change. Overall 62 – 33 percent majority (second poll 63 – ?%) for paying more, with the Republican party supporters only 46-49.(second poll 51 – ?%).

Climate Pete
July 5, 2015 4:26 pm


WASHINGTON — An overwhelming majority of the American public, including half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future.
In a finding that could have implications for the 2016 presidential campaign, the poll also found that two-thirds of Americans said they were more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They were less likely to vote for candidates who questioned or denied the science that determined that humans caused global warming.
Among Republicans, 48 percent say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, a result that Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University and an author of the survey, called “the most powerful finding” in the poll.

July 6, 2015 4:52 am

It is obvious to me that when a postee uses a prefix to their posting name at this site of “climate *blah*” one can easily know that that postee is posting garbage!

Reply to  Patrick
July 6, 2015 8:45 am

The science is settled, bombastic rhetoric is all they have.

Climate Pete
Reply to  Patrick
July 6, 2015 10:24 am

The sounds like an ideal self-justification for not reading any links supplied as evidence when you suspect you may not like the contents if you do read them.
But if you only wish to read stuff which confirms your current opinions that is your free choice.

July 10, 2015 8:44 pm

Hang on, I have a question being a dumb layman. If CO2 is causing warming, the more CO2 the more warming (forgetting logarithmic absorption low sensitivity parameter etc) Now, if oceans absorb CO2 when it cools and release CO2 when it warms wouldn’t the warmer temperatures lead to LESS CO2 in the ocean?

%d bloggers like this: