One for BB & PJ: Cambridge Warmists Vs Skeptics

[pjclarke]

real scientists publish results even if they do not support their pet theories, real scientists have integrity and honour. You are mocking mr watts for being a real scientist ??

Seriously? Watts published a series of photographs of poorly-sited weather stations, satirically entitled 'How not to measure temperature' , in every case the poor siting, e.g. concrete, nearby airport would warm the site. Of the sites with shade or encroaching vegetation e.g.




he showed precisely zero. There was a record number of national high temperature records set last year, on Mr Watts 'science' blog you could only read about unusually cold weather, early snow ...

He routinely posts accusations of implied fraud against distinguished scientists, after he smeared Professor Mark Serreze, Director of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, Serreze opined

' I have yet to lose any sleep over what is talked about in WattsUpWithThat or any other similar blog that insists on arguing from a viewpoint of breathtaking ignorance.

Watts et al' 'report' Surface Temperature Record: Policy Driven Deception? accused top U.S. scientists of various kinds of malfeasance in the global temperature record. Its central claim was easily demolished - did Watts issue a correction and apology?

He routinely permits bile, and offensive and tasteless comments on his blog - so long as they are anti-climate science, here's one of the more reproducable, referring to a speech by Jim Hansen ,

I imagined listening to this in an auditorium, decked top to toe with Greenpeasce flags & green uniformed supporters, with Mr H wearing a little black moustache & a swept down fringe, thumping the podium & ranting that he’ll give us the world, free of evil oil, coal, gas.

Charming.

[AtW]

real scientists publish results even if they do not support their pet theories, real scientists have integrity and honour.

B0ll0x.

Some of the most important scientific advances in history were done by those whose research would not be believed - scientists are free to try to prove whatever the hell they want, there is no obligation to publish preliminary research that does not yet prove their point - they should not however fabricate data and publish bogus stuff to get money/position.

[EternalOptimist]

Look pj, I know this is an alien concept to you
I realise that you may not understand this, but I will spell it out anyway..


real scientists publish results even if they do not support their pet theories, real scientists have integrity and honour.

You are mocking mr watts for being a real scientist ??

maybe if he fiddled the figures, refused freedom of Information requests, produced dodgy graphs, and asked the taxpayer to subsidise him, you would find him a lot more palatable ??
you are a nasty piece of work.

[EternalOptimist]

Anyone read/seen more in-depth information about it?

I know a little bit about it.

The Yanks have a national temperature record, which is populated from data from surface stations. These are basically fancy thermometers dotted around the country.
Its the raw data from these that the warmists used to populate their graphs and scary models with. But everyone knows that a thermometer can give different readings, depending where it is placed, and everyone (or most people) are aware that cities are warmer than rural areas (this is know as the Urban Heat Island Effect - UHI).

Now Mr Watts was sceptical about the hockey stick graph so he decided to forget the models and look to see where the base data was coming from. He met instant opposition. Why ? and why hadnt the hockey stick people done this themselves ? after all, this is what science is all about. checking , rechecking, testing and retesting.

Noone knows why there was so much opposition. Why is pj so dismissive ?

no one knows.

Anways, the bottom line is that a lot of the surface stations started out in rural areas, but due to increased urbanisation they are smack bang in builtup areas now. Obviously they show increases in temperature over time
The people who own the surface stations started moving them to good locations when mr Watts highlighted their dodgy positioning - but they didnt tell anyone. Clearly a history of a surface station that has been moved must be suspect.

What the whole saga shows, is that the US temperature record is flakey, the science is not settled, and you cannot rely on the warmist side to try to be accurate and get down to the nitty gritty. In fact, they oppose and ridicule anyone who trys (see pj above)

[d000hg]

Oh dear.

So your official stance is that there are no credible scientists on the sceptical side at all? It sounded like the warmists don't agree amongst themselves and admit a lot of uncertainty.

[Doggy Styles]

It's a roasting 35 degrees centigrade in Buckinghamshire today. Phew!

Still, it's melted most of the snow.

[pjclarke]

Skeptics? Nils Axel Morner? The dowsing guy?

Ian Plimer? The underwater volcano guy?

This is the best the 'sceptics' (And I will remove the quotes when they start behaving sceptically) can muster?

Puh-leeze. BTW I see that BB mentor Anthony Watts has finally published a paper based on his volunteer project to assess the quality of US weather stations. To summarise, Mr Watts has demonstrated conclusively that poor station siting does matter. It tends to result in an underestimate of trends in the maximum daily temperature, and his co-author Dr Pielke asserts that these trends are the better indicator of general atmospheric trends.

Oh dear.

[DimPrawn]

Climate change could spark UK rail revival and tourism boom, research finds | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Could climate change be a good thing? | Environment | guardian.co.uk




£1000 fine for anyone NOT driving a 5 litre V8 4x4 I say

[AtW]

Thanks for your contribution

You are welcome.

[d000hg]

I don't bother reading The Register any more.

Thanks for your contribution

[TimberWolf]

I don't bother reading The Register any more.

[d000hg]

Surprised neither of them posted this already; maybe they both ignored it on the basis it doesn't support what they want to preach.

I only read this overview: Would putting all the climate scientists in a room solve global warming... ? The Register

Anyone read/seen more in-depth information about it?