Reply to: Climate Change not so important

[pjclarke]

Actually the imprecise timeframe ' a few years' was added by to the quote by the journalist, we have no idea if it is an accurate paraphrase or not, - elsewhere in the piece, which is built around a handful of actual quotes, Viner uses a timeframe of 20 years.

This picking out of odd decades-old quotes from the media, in the presence of thousands of pages of evidence in the literature and IPCC reports is fun but unlikely to form the basis of a convincing case. Especially as even the 'quality' press gets it badly wrong remarkably often ...

The article had been completely rewritten, essentially parroting North's blog, to include new quotes from me (genuine, but heavily edited and misleadingly taken out of context), and fabricated assertions about my views. An accompanying editorial called for the IPCC chairman to resign.

I was furious. Worse, the two conflicting versions of my views — on the BBC and in The Sunday Times — constituted a serious affront to my professional credibility

Apology and Retraction No 1 Sunday Times

Apology No 2 Telegraph

Apology No 3 Telegraph Again


Global warming is a scam because ... journalists sometimes misquote scientists. Yep, I'm convinced.

[sasguru]

He said this:




is it?

Well big business insurance whose future depends on trends and who employ loads of actuaries, unconnected with climate science, seem to think so:

[BlasterBates]

He said this:

within a few years snow would become very rare

is it?

[sasguru]

James Hansen´s prediction is the just one of the many rediculous predictions that scientists make to jounalists, rather like the ice berg from Antarctica floating across the equator and stopping the Gulf stream or perhaps you remember this one:

The article has the headline "Snowfall now just a thing of the past" whereas the scientists quoted says "snowfall will become a rare event". So the journalist got the gist of it wrong.

So what's your point?

[BlasterBates]

James Hansen´s prediction is the just one of the many rediculous predictions that scientists make to jounalists, rather like the ice berg from Antarctica floating across the equator and stopping the Gulf stream or perhaps you remember this one:

[sasguru]

Yet strangely in keeping with the rest of your general commentary on a whole range of topics way beyond your ken.
What a complete c0cksocket you are!

You know they say that being stupid and rich is a recipe for happiness.
Well, you must be half happy.

[shaunbhoy]

Irrelevant piffle

Yet strangely in keeping with the rest of your general commentary on a whole range of topics way beyond your ken.
What a complete c0cksocket you are!

[sasguru]

Very fire and brimstone....

Most of it complete clap trap.

There has been absolutely no downward trend in precipitation on mainland Europe. Where are the water shortages I would expect to see here in mainland Europe?, apart from Spain which always has been patially a desert?

As for the heatwave in Russia. Did you notice there was no heatwave in France or Italy? No the hot patch caused by Arctic blocking (weather pattern) was Eastwards. The heatwave was unusual because it was further East. Just a few miles away from the hotspot is was colder than average.

By the way you forgot to mention that the glaciers in the Himalayas will have disappeared in 2035, that the Hudson River would be two metres higher by 2010, that Arctic would be ice free by 2013, and that commercial shipping would be traversing the Arctic by 2010. That the only inhabitable continent would be Antarctica, which would incidentally require a 60 dgree rise in temperature.

I find these claims highly amusing, but they don´t have much to do with reality.

Environmentalists are reponsible for the deaths of millions of people from malaria, due to "succesfully" having DDT banned, to protect wild flowers.

I suspect if they get their way millions more will die from their Geoengineering projects.

Good rant, most of it irrelevant to the discussion, with the hysterical and shrill tone of someone going "la la la la stop showing me all the evidence, I prefer my own unsubstantiated, ignorant and frankly ill-educated vapouring to real data".



HTH, but IDI.

[BlasterBates]

Very fire and brimstone....

Most of it complete clap trap.

There has been absolutely no downward trend in precipitation on mainland Europe. Where are the water shortages I would expect to see here in mainland Europe?, apart from Spain which always has been patially a desert?

As for the heatwave in Russia. Did you notice there was no heatwave in France or Italy? No the hot patch caused by Arctic blocking (weather pattern) was Eastwards. The heatwave was unusual because it was further East. Just a few miles away from the hotspot is was colder than average.

By the way you forgot to mention that the glaciers in the Himalayas will have disappeared in 2035, that the Hudson River would be two metres higher by 2010, that Arctic would be ice free by 2013, and that commercial shipping would be traversing the Arctic by 2010. That the only inhabitable continent would be Antarctica, which would incidentally require a 60 dgree rise in temperature.

I find these claims highly amusing, but they don´t have much to do with reality.

Environmentalists are reponsible for the deaths of millions of people from malaria, due to "succesfully" having DDT banned, to protect wild flowers.

I suspect if they get their way millions more will die from their Geoengineering projects.

[DimPrawn]

If you imagine we didn't have the hockey stick up from around 1900 (industrial revolution), the climate in the northern hemisphere would be very cold by now.

Life would be cold and miserable the elderly would be dead from the effects of freezing winters.

Thank god we found coil, oil and gas!

[DimPrawn]

The hockey stick bit has been added on hasn't it? it's not a direct observation.

Here's another one.

[TimberWolf]

Did anyone see "Ancient Worlds" last night on BBC2? The guy presenting it had all the mannerisms of Robert Webb.

[DimPrawn]

His graph is based solely on the GISP 2 ice core data, which he truncates in 1905. If he had added on the modern record it would show recent temperatures about 3C higher than the point that he labels as 'present' .

I'd be interested to see a graph showing 10,000 or more years of temperature data (from ice cores or tree rings or similar), that at least goes up to this century.

Fed up with seeing graphs that don't go back more than a few years, where it is impossible to see the extent of the "man-made" warming in context of the longer term climate.

Cheers.

[sasguru]

Which is of course based around tree ring data, Easterbrook´s graph is ice core data plus the satellite temperature up to the present day.

As has been published several times in peer reviewed journals, temperature records based on tree rings is flawed. I find the arguments above typical of the AGW dogma, which ignores some of the latest research, for example the recent paper that showed the tree ring analysis to be highly flawed.

What recent paper? When having a scientific discussion it is usual to provide links to your evidence rather than vaguely alluding to it.
HTH

[BlasterBates]

Like I said, Easterbrook is not above altering a graph when it suits. Gareth Renowden points out that when presenting the Greenland ice core data, Easterbrook ignores the last 105 years. Those will be the ones that show rapid and unprecedented warming, then.



The inset is Easterbrook's graph, the blue/purple line is Easterbrook's 'current' temps, the green the actual recent Greenland temperature. No sign of a MWP warmer than today. Hope that's clear.

I am not sure I would rely on such a source for an argument. By contrast, Kaufman et al, published an analysis of Arctic temperatures last year in Science based on ice cores, tree rings and lake sediments. It looks like this



Hope this helps.

Which is of course based around tree ring data, Easterbrook´s graph is ice core data plus the satellite temperature up to the present day.

As has been published several times in peer reviewed journals, temperature records based on tree rings is flawed. I find the arguments above typical of the AGW dogma, which ignores some of the latest research, for example the recent paper that showed the tree ring analysis to be highly flawed.