'There's too much climate change denial on the BBC'

"He's a little bit too eager to bend over backwards to be politically respectable," is how Richard Dawkins describes the celebrated snail biologist and broadcaster Dr Steven Jones. Jones' recent political activity includes campaigning for the abolition of private schools and against a visit to Britain by the Pope. Now Jones has …

[Anonymous Coward]

"Deniers"

I've noticed this more and more - I assumes it's a move by the pro climate change body to dismiss people who don't blindly agree with them, and I assume their idea is that people will look on people who don't blindly believe as being in the same sort of camp as Holocaust deniers.... which frankly says a lot about people like Dr Jones in my opinion.

[Anonymous Coward]

100% Agree

I read that BBC report yesterday and was offended. The language used was very dismissive of anyones opinion. You'd think there was no doubt what so ever that climate change occours only because man from the way he's talking.

Problem with people like him is, if there ever was 100% conclusive, undeniable evidence that climate change isn't man made, he's still have a holier than thou attitude that he was "doing the right thing"

[Ian McNee]

Summed up very nicely,..

...that terrible Prof. Jones dismissing ***OPINION*** voiced against the overwhelming ***SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE***. It's a bleedin' outrage! Call the Daily Heil now! And so what if most of that opinion masquerading as science if funded vested interests making billions from carbon-based fuels?

And, Andrew, as for your collection of ad hominem quips against Steve Jones and your final hyperbolic nonsense about the possibility that the Tories would be able to close the BBC, you can do so much better.

[JC_]

Godwin's Law on the First Post?

The evidence overwhelmingly supports AGW, that's just how it is. There's no need for holocaust comparisons - no one is victimising you for your opinion, however ill-judged it may be...

[Dave Handley]

@JC_ Fail

The evidence does not "overwhelmingly support AGW". There is reasonable evidence of a trend in global temperatures in the last 30-40 years. This evidence has been getting considerably less convincing over the last 10 years as observed temperatures have steadfastly refused to keep rising, and have been wildly different to the models.

As someone who writes statistical models for a living, I am decidedly unimpressed by the climate change modellers. Their models are unstable for minor perturbations in inputs that are very unknown. For example, take one of the climate model and tweak the constant they use for cloud formation a small amount and watch the five degree change in predicted mean temperature in 100 years time. There are plenty of other examples of this. In fact, when climate "evidence" of this form has been shown to real statisticians the results have been scary (read up on the discrediting of the hockey stick curve for a great example - essentially with the methods the researchers were using, any auto-correlated sequence of temperatures would have generated broadly the same shape of graph).

Finally, and most importantly, the question of anthropogenic or not is still undergoing considerable research. Even on such a pro-AGW source as the BBC you routinely see stories that proudly claim, "finally climate change is proven to be Anthropogenic". Then the same claim is made again on a new story 6 months later - clearly showing that the consensus is not that the proof is widely believed. For a little bit of balance and knowledge of the uncertainties in this space, look at something like the report mentioned here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11438570

[Naughtyhorse]

Their models are unstable for minor perturbations in inputs

which i guess is in no way whatsoever a result of the fact that the phenomena they are trying to model are in fact chaotic - e.g. systems which show large and un predictable shanges in output from minor pertubations in inputs.

or to put it another way you are suspicious of CC modelers models because their behaviour so accurately reflects the behaviours of the systems they are trying to model.

or to put it a third way, tweak the way actual real clouds form a small amount, sit back and wait for a 100 years and lo the climate will indeed have changed - a lot. in which way i wouldnt dare to hazard a guess, but a lot would be my bet.

You are aware that climate is chaotic, of course you must be, what with writing statistical models for a living. and as such you will recall from 'mathematical modeling 101' that the first thing you do when setting out to model a system is to characterise the models overall behaviour; linear, non-linear, chaotic etc etc.

unless of course you are a big ol troll who knoweth not of what he speaks???

[Anonymous Coward]

@Naughtyhorse

I think you have completely missed his point, or at least his point as I see it:

The point is not that climate is chaotic (we know it is) it is that although the models are chaotic and give wildly unstable results the climate modellers (who get airtime at least) present their results as inerrant fact.

Which, by your own agreement it is not.

[Matt Bryant]

RE: @Naughtyhorse

"....The point is not that climate is chaotic...." I think you'll find this is an excuse used by scientists when they simply don't have a good enough model/theory/proof to be able to predict an event. There is nothing truly chaotic in the weather, it's just fundamental physics in operation, it is simply that we are unable to calculate the impact of all the variables to allow us to make truly exact predictions (although we do seem to be getting very good at general short-term forecasts due to comparing with historical data). The global warming fanatics seem very quick to play the chaotic card when their models fall flat on their faces. The most fun to be had is by pointing out that the recent global cooling pokes great big holes in their religion.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what's YOUR excuse

for not knowing what 'chaotic' means in the context of a scientific discussion of a system's properties?

[George Kapotto]

re: 'climate is not chaotic'

In dismissing chaos, you invoke chaos as your opposing argument so what is your point?

From Wikipedia... (and yes I know it isn't authoritative but the wording was better than my own on short notice.)

"Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. ... This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos."

'Chaotic' emphatically does not equal 'random'. The trouble with predicting weather or other chaotic systems is that future states are divergent. More precise measurements will give better predictions as you stated but cannot guarantee long term forecasts. However, the potential states of a chaotic systems are still loosely constrained by limiting factors. These loose constraints can be considered the 'climate'. A study of weather trends can infer climate and typical weather conditions but will never predict, a priori, the exact amount of rain in Winchester on St. Swithun's Day, 2015.

When the limiting factors change, chaotic systems establish a new set of typical states (aka weather). Often they do not transition smoothly. Often they jump abruptly back and forth from one set of typical states to another.

Rant all you want about the currently 'stalled' global warming. (btw - Where is your evidence of that?) If anthropogenic climate change is real, we may encounter abrupt and catastrophic weather transitions on our way to a hotter and less pleasant planet interspersed with years of relative normalcy - until the new normal settles in for good.

Believe me or not as you choose. Your fundamental failure to understand even the basics of 'chaos' suggest an inherent inability to cogently debate the issue. Rebut all you want and good day...

[gzuckier]

indeed

The self-proclaimed geniuses here telling us that it's too complex to predict, would probably resist any suggestion that July in the northern hemisphere tends to be more warm than January, on the average. It's too chaotic to predict that!

[gzuckier]

cooler heads fail

"There is nothing truly chaotic in the weather, it's just fundamental physics in operation, it is simply that we are unable to calculate the impact of all the variables to allow us to make truly exact predictions"

Umm... that's the basic definition of chaotic processes...

" Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

[Matt Bryant]

RE: cooler heads fail

One of the delights of working in IT is that the rocket-like speed of development of faster and more capable systems means we often get to see incorrect scientific theorems disproven inside our own lifetimes. Many years ago, the nuke bomb scientists said the only way to test bombs was to explode them, but now we have the knowledge (gathered from those tests) and the computing power to accurately model those explosions. We can even skip a lot non-nuke weapons testing by doing a lot of it in simulators. Along the way, some strongly-held theorems have fallen to the wayside.

Some day, who knows how long or short into the future, we will have systems so powerful that we can remove the "chaos" from the weather forecasting and even the global climate models. When that happens, some egotistical scientists are going to be disappointed and some are going to be celebrating, but until then NOTHING IS PROVEN. So, please take your insistance that you and only you are right and shove it where the Sun doesn't shine.

[Sirius Lee]

You are aware that climate is chaotic...

@Naughtyhorse

You have to be really careful when using the 'chaotic' argument as you have because its a double-edged sword.

Let's take your argument at face value then play it back to you to point out that the observed change in temperatures over the last 30-40 year may also have been an effect of a chaotic system and nothing to do with AGW at all.

[strum]

Deniers

This is the only sensible term - for people who blindly ignore the science.

>in the same sort of camp as Holocaust deniers

Yep. Pretty close. Blindly ignoring the facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

@strum RE:Deniers

Idiot. The only sensible term for someone that blindly believes theories are scientific fact.

[Fractal]

Nonsense

That comment is the same kind of nonsense that leads to creationists dismissing evolution as "only a theory."

Science does not deal in absolutes, it deals in approximations and theories which match reality with a very high degree of accuracy.

The fact is consensus science is on the side of anthropogenic climate change. Sticking your head in the sand and wishing something else were true does not make your position logical, considered or correct.

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree

The "pro man made climate change" religious movement seem to be running a neo-inquisition, where any dissent and questioning is treated as heresy.

Anyway the climate has always changed, they've got ice cores to show how much it changed, way before mankind burnt fossil fuels on the current scale we do.

So the real question is not whether you believe the climate changes , it surely does, but as to what effect man kinds activities are driving it.

Out of all the environmental sins we do as a species, I'd have thought deforestation, over population, destroying the marine ecosystem with polutants and over fishing amongst many sins were much worse crimes than some CO2, of which by far the largest amounts are released by natural process, with nothing to do with burning fossil fuel.

When I was a child back in the late 70s I can remember predictions that we were heading for another ice age, then some bunch of CO2-climate changers got funded by Maggie Thatcher's government , because she hated the miners for her own political reasons and wanted to stop burning coal, and 25 years later we are still listening to their demented drivel. They still want to be paid to do there research, so they have to continue on with it as an article of faith, after all like all organised religious people they need an income. Welcome to the Religion of Man Made Climate Change, where anyone who questions their faith is labelled a heretic.

So what should I believe , a new ice age or boiling seas ?

[Steven Roper]

I can hang disparaging labels on people too

If I'm a AGW "denier", then those who say so must be AGW "believers", right? Maybe we just exist to test your faith.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous Coward I completely agree -I Don't Agree

"some bunch of CO2-climate changers got funded by Maggie Thatcher's government , because "she hated the miners for her own political reasons and wanted to stop burning coal"

What a silly idea. If she wanted to ban coal why did she import and stockpile so much? It couldn't have been that she wanted to break the back of unelected thugs like Scargill 's union hold over the whole of the UK, would it?

I am very grateful for Arthur- he demonstrated to the whole of the UK (and, indeed, the world) what despotic union organisations really meant when they talked about "Democracy".

It meant, in a very Stalinist way, that everyone should abide by their rules/orders.

It is amusing that those who do not know their history believe without knowledge- perhaps the world is indeed flat, and the sun revolces around it!

[gzuckier]

predicting a new ice age

I guess it escaped your notice (or maybe you didn't bother to check....?) that the climatologists who were named as predicting a new ice age in the 70s are the same one predicting no AGW now? What's the thinking here, that they're bound to get it right sooner or later?

[Anonymous Coward]

The AGW Science Scam

It's clear that there is a veritable army of thousands of corrupt scientists,ready to fake data and mis-represent the facts in order to promote AGW. I predict that very soon this will be revealed, along with the payments they are receiving (Swiss bank accounts) and sometimes blackmail if they decide not to play along. Why else would they deceive us? If you want to know who's paying, I have some ideas on that too...

[gzuckier]

it's a conspiracy i tell you

The vastly wealthy and all-powerful climatologist cartel, scheming to retain their vastly wealthy grants.

[Thought About IT]

The politicisation of science

"Many Conservative MPs – I've spoken to several – are itching to abolish the BBC Trust."

Didn't James Murdoch make that a prerequisite for News International to back them at the last election? Oops!

[Anonymous Coward]

Axing only the BBC trust?

Typical half measures. Burn down the BBC, demolish the rubble and salt the ground. Have the staff rabble dispersed by water cannon. Let the Guardian jobs section wither on the vine.

Axe the Telly Tax!

[Frank Fisher]

plagiarist!

I'm sure that rant was mine first - you missed a bit though. "Tear down the BBC, feed the bodies to pigs, shoot the pigs, burn the pigs, bury the pigs, salt the ground, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

[Anonymous Coward]

Why

bring police misbehaviour into this discussion?

[horse of a different colour]

@Frank

+1 for the Aliens reference.

[Steve Crook]

Ed Milliband wants the BBC broken up...

Well, he said he never wants a media organisation to be in the same position of power and influence as News International. If that can be applied to NI, then why not the BBC? They have a significant lock on news and current affairs reporting in this country...

[Jess]

It is important to keep an open mind.

While we should be saving as much fuel and using renewables, irrespective of the climate issue, it would be stupid to totally dismiss the possibility that our carbon production might not be the cause.

What if it turned out that cutting carbon didn't stop global warming and it happened anyway?

There need to be plans for dealing with serious global warming happening, not just trying to stop it.

Because if there aren't and we either don't cut carbon enough, or it made no difference, we are in trouble.

[Goat Jam]

There is very little carbon pollution these days

Oh, you meant "Carbon Dioxide"

[gzuckier]

Occam's slashing your wrists

The denialists need first to agree among themselves whether it never was warming, it was warming but it stopped, or it's still warming; then they need not only to explain what's causing/caused/didn't cause the warming (hint: "It's cyclical" isn't an explanation, it's an observation); they also need to explain WHY EXACTLY BURNING CARBON DOESN'T CAUSE A RISE IN CARBON DIOXIDE, AND WHY A RISE IN CARBON DIOXIDE DOESN'T CAUSE THE ATMOSPHERE TO RETAIN MORE INFRARED ENERGY as very basic physical theory predicts, and as the fact that the surface of the earth is warmer than the surface of the moon, for example, tends to confirm. I'm really tired of having to explain to people who are world-class scientists in their own minds that "The earth is not warming, and the warming is because of the sun" is not a scientific hypothesis.

[Frank Fisher]

AGW is real!

Real where the evidence appears, in computer models. It's absolutely right - if you fiddle the variables int he right fashion, temperatures soar - in RAM. However, in the real world, everything AGW propagandists talk about is, at best, correlation. At worst sheer fakery. And the idea that science is some kind of democracy where the majority view should automatically prevail is pure tosh. Steve Jones should know that.

I'm happy to be called a denier, an extremist, a sceptic - i don't mind. The evidence for catastrophic man made global warming just isn't there. It ain't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed

Claiming the Earth is doomed because of global warming is as credible as claiming it's about to be demolished by the Vogons.

Beer, check

Peanuts, check

Erm, has anyone seen my towel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the Earth isn't doomed!

The temperatures could go up to thousands of degrees and the Earth would happily keep on the same ol' orbital path about the sun without so much as a hickup.

Even with the more modest predicted change in climate, it is only the ongoing viability of human civilisation (not even the human species is at any serious risk, we survived quite fine without advanced civilisation for hundreds of millions of years). Billions might die, those left might be left scratching around in the mud for tubers. There won't be any easily-accessible resources left to restart with because we long ago used them up in our current round. But in the end, so what? Humanity as a civilised culture is a tiny tiny tiny space in planetary history. What have we actually done for the bits of the planet that aren't ourselves?

Humanity either survives or it dies. We certainly would be smart to care about this, but the Earth doesn't care one whit: vacated ecological niches will just be refilled in a relatively short time and diversity re-established under wherever the climat settles (or not - lack of significant active lifeforms hasn't stopped Venus, or Mars existing - their geo-chemistries are ticking along nicely thanks.)

It really really pisses me off when people like to imply that the Earth (or even the universe!!) is somehow dependent on our cultural presence for its continued existence. Get it into our stupid collective heads: We as a species+culture simply don't matter to anyone but ourselves. We either get our act together in the name of self-preservation or fail to get preserved. In the latter case, there will be no-one to notice, let-alone mourn, our abscence.

[IanPotter]

RE: Of course the Earth isn't doomed!

Harsh, but fair...

[John Angelico]

Missed ...

... your anti-depressants today, did you?

[gzuckier]

Ummmm

Whoever said that the Earth's existence depended on the existence of humanity?

[John Angelico]

@N'n'G

...for failure to dispose of now-useless scripts of Godspell , and lost towel.

Uh, no there it is - wrapped around the Sub-Ether Sens-O-Matic...

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright, I'll call you on it

Science uses a process called "The Scientific Method" in which theories which match the data become accepted until data arises that disproves them. That has been how science has worked for as long as it has existed.

If you have data that disproves a theory that you disagree with, then publish it and watch as the theories that previously held sway are rejected.

If you don't then you're just taking an anti-science position, just another Creationist. You're welcome to your opinions and you're welcome to share them, but when you do so you will be judged on them by rational people with an understanding of how the scientific process works and found entirely wanting.

[Anonymous Coward]

The main problem is...

That whole method relies on assumption, swathing general assumptions about anything and everything. You can have all the evidence in the world to say you're correct about one thing or another, but if the laws of physics suddenly change tomorrow and all the planets in the universe turn into pink tubby custard then it was all meaningless.

Don't believe anything!

[Giles Jones]

Erm.

Science has given us all the things we take for granted. Computers, electricity, cars, medicine and health care.

Why should all that be dismissed because a bunch of oil lobbyists are funding research against the viewpoint of the majority of scientists?

It's very easy to bury your head in the sand because you want to drive a big gas guzzler and fly around the world with a clear conscience.

Even if CO2 was found to not be the cause, we still have a crisis which is the lack of land and water required to produce food. Chopping down the rainforests to produce cattle feed and palm oil isn't doing the world much good.

[elderlybloke]

Erm.

Greetings Giles Jones,

All the problems would be reduced by a large amount , if the prolific uncontrolled breeding by Humans was cut , as the Chinese have doing.

Freedom of Choice is a load of crap , it results in fucking the Planet ,

PS - I am a Global Warming Denier

[h4rm0ny]

Re: Lobbyists?

"Why should all that be dismissed because a bunch of oil lobbyists are funding research against the viewpoint of the majority of scientists?"

Anyone complaining about funding for scientists who dispute AGW is on shakey ground, given the truly staggering amount of grant money paid for research promoting AGW theories.

Scientific truth doesn't depend on money. But if people are going to argue that science done is invalid because those doing it have a profit motive in the results, then the pro-AGW faction would be by far the greatest culprit.

[Nexox Enigma]

Exactly

"""Science uses a process called "The Scientific Method" in which theories which match the data become accepted until data arises that disproves them. That has been how science has worked for as long as it has existed."""

Which is my problem with the whole thing - the data, frequently, is massaged into fitting the theory, which is the wrong way round. Another important bit of "The Scientific Method" is peer review (On every step from data collection to conclusions,) which has been a bit unimpressive thus far.

Something that I know for sure is that science isn't done by politicians, governments, or whoever else is writing the checks - there are far too many conflicts of interest in this field for me to take much of anything seriously.

So I guess I'll keep on with my "Anti-science" position until I see some actual "Science" done. Anyone who believes absolutely in either side of this current debacle is clearly a bit short in the "Critical Thinking and Analysis" department.

[gzuckier]

ahh

I take it you read all the climatology journals, Physical Review Letters, etc. and find the publications wanting? Please be so kind as to enlighten us as to their faults, more specifically. We await your pearls of wisdom.

[JP19]

theories which match the data

But the only data we have is historical and a bit rubbish because we are left with what little remains and that data is the product of many 'theories' and there is no way to attribute it between them. We can't conduct useful experiments to obtain more or more relevant data because they need to be the size of the planet and would take decades if not centuries to complete.

So there is sod all data to match theories for them to become accepted and we are not going to get more data in a hurry and still won't be able to attribute it to particular theories.

The quality (the level of confidence with which it can be used to predict the future) of a theory does not depend on the absence of data which disproves it, it depends of the quantity and nature of data which has failed to disprove it.

If you understood scientific method you would not accuse someone who observes the quantity and nature of data failing to disprove AGW theory is lacking of taking an anti-science position.

Gratz on the slimy creationist quip, that's a new one.

[John Angelico]

Deep Thought experiment?

Could it require seven and a half million years for this experiment?

[Matt Bryant]

RE: Alright, I'll call you on it

"Science uses a process called "The Scientific Method"...." Yeah, but unfortunately a lot of "research" today isn't driven by that proces or even by real science, it's driven by funding. A lot of funding is coming from non-scientific people that want to make a profit. That's all fine and dandy if they are wanting to build things for the betterment of mankind, like more efficient airliners, or cheaper medicines with less side-effects, but the inconvenient truth is the AGW "research" seems to be driven by people like Al Gore, who just want to make money for themselves by herding the sheeple in the direction they want.

[Anteaus]

Is he joking, or what?

bbc.co.uk must be the second most Warmist-oriented site on the planet, after Al Gore's personal site. Even articles on totally unrelated subjects manage to sneakily infer a relevance to alleged climate change models.

It's almost like one of those bible-belt schoolbooks in which physics, French or chemistry are laced-through with religious quotes, and which carefully avoid any daring statements such as 'The earth is actually quite a few billion years old, not five thousand' -which might result in the author being taken, somewhat forcibly, to the nearest firewood-equipped stake.

[h4rm0ny]

Re: Is he joking, or what?

No, the BBC is in third place! The most "warmist-orientated site on the planet" is the Independent's web-site where they routinely delete comments that question AGW from relavent stories and if the whole trend of commentary is going against what they want (as once happened when Johann Harri wrote a piece that was so flawed even pro-AGW posters were criticising it), then they delete the whole thread of conversation and lock it so it can't reappear, pretending it never happened.

[ph0b0s]

Computer models....

""There have been many computer models of what may happen in future," Jones says, adding, "almost every climatologist predicts a period of rising temperature"."

This is my biggest problem with this. How many of these computer models have actually tallied well with what is actually happening?

Coming from a Scientific background, the way this works seems simple. How create a hypothesis. You then use that hypothesis to work out how things should behave (like in a computer model). You test experimentally that what was predicted due to your hypothesis tally's with what you see experimentally. I.e you should see happening in the real word what was predicted in the computer models. You test to make sure there are no other variables you have not taken into account that also affect things, but that's it.

So climate change proof should be easy, you should be able to roll out the results predicted by the computer models and they should match with what we have actually been seeing over the past few years. But as far as I'm aware the models are not matching up apart from in the basic prediction that temperatures will go up. I would expect at least the rate of increase to match up, which seems to be not happening at the moment.

Now I know modelling the whole world's climate is not easy. But one prediction was that the rate of increase in temperature was supposed to be increasing, which has not matched reality.

Now I sit on no side in this. You put a model in front of me that is being accurate in it predictions, I am with you. But that does not seem to be the case yet.... And yes I am completely there with the idea the climate is changing, just the why is not 100% for me yet.

Again please correct me where my statements are incorrect, but I though this was a pretty simple concept in science that hypothesis has to match reality. And to debate this should result in you being called a denier. People challenging E=MC^2 is perfectly fine in science. There is only one field I can think of where you are not allowed to challenge dogma......

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't tell what a computer model predict's....

without telling me what it has successfully predicted in the past....

How do these models get such media play when their prediction record, as far as we know, is as good as my magic eight ball's.

[5.antiago]

@ AC 13:34

"without telling me what it has successfully predicted in the past...."

Genuinely stupid comment. Using computers to model and analyse data in the fields of medicine, social science and the environment have saved millions and millions of lives. Computer processing and mathematical models helped put a man on the moon.

You are a fool, and your sweepingly ignorant statement has actually made me angry. Why are people so anti-scientific method these days? How and why has it become so fashionable to be stupid and small-minded? I despair

Modelling is a technique done by humans, and use computers as a tool for this. And humanity has a strong track of successful outcomes using the technique when bolstered with computing power. Fools like you just expect too much

The problem with these particular environmental models is more to do with the complexity of the situation they are required to model, and the subsequent over-extrapolation of the results.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I think he meant...

varying the time input in the negative direction... not "what have the Romans ever done for us?"

[Anonymous Coward]

@5.antiago & Naughtyhorse

@5.antiago

Don't know how you have extrapolated from my comments about the computer models being used in climate science, mean that I hate all computer models and don't believe they are any value. Clam down....

My comments were purely about that we get reports everyday about this computer model says that we will have no ice in the Arctic, in x short number of years or any other sensational conclusion. My point was that you should not believe the scary results from a computer model until it successfully predicts something that actually happens. I would imagine that a model would have to have a few years of having it's results occur in the real world before you believe what it is telling you about the distant future. And having said conclusions reported by the media. I could make a model that said any of a number of things, but if it is not successful in it's predictions what value does it have?

I have no problems with computer modelling as I have one ruining looking for cancer curing molecules for my screen saver. But computer models are only as good as the people using them and the methodology they are programmed with.

@Naughtyhorse

I don't expect a computer model to give me microscopic predictions about the whole climate, like the temperature at my house 10 years from now. But if a predictions is made as I have seen reported that the rate of temperature rise is predicted to increase, and it doesn't, you should be be beaten up for questioning that model. That is what a good scientist should do.

Now it may well be that the models being produced now are pretty damn accurate, but you would need a few years or even decades to test that accuracy.

Does that mean that we stop all work on making the world more energy efficient and getting off oil, no. Oil is about to run out, that even more certain than man made climate change.

[5.antiago]

At AC 21:41

Aye, ok, maybe I was too quick to associate your comment with the "science knows nothing" simpleton brigade, so sorry for that. I still think your expectations for these models are a bit off though, but I'll try to justify this without calling you a fool this time:

You seem to suggest that an environmental model must be completely confirmed as utterly accurate before we act on it, and that there's no way to confirm this accuracy until decades later. The latter is technically true of course, but in the meantime perhaps the arctic ice has melted just like most of the models had always suggested, and the population then accuses the past governments of rampant & obvious stupidity because "now look where we are!" etc.

The reality is that models get updated and reviewed into more sophisticated (i.e. less wrong) models as part of an ongoing process. Just like when they're modelling probable environmental stresses on a building prior to actually constructing it, they don't wait another 50 years until a real earthquake knocks down some kind of test building they put up to confirm the model. At some point you have to just say "OK, go" on the grounds that the model is correct to within a statistically significant degree

"I would imagine that a model would have to have a few years of having it's results occur in the real world before you believe what it is telling you about the distant future" I broadly agree with this, which is what I meant when I said that a problem is with over-extrapolation of the results. (Continuing the earthquake/engineering modelling example, there are many many years of data on structures that survived or fell that drive the current "mature" models) So I'm as concerned as the next person every time I hear "ahhhhh, but it turned out we didn't include THIS!", and I wonder how much the political/media/corporate pressures are driving these predictions of doom. I think the answer is more research and less grandiose predictions.

My underlying point here is that we should be careful to separate criticism of environmental modelling with criticism of what people are saying it all means and how we should subsequently behave. People are very quick to blur it all together and they end up distrusting everything.

We'll never get anywhere if people are conditioned to automatically call "bullshit!" every time they see some scientific research.

PS, I think you had a typo and you meant to say: "[If a prediction doesn't come true] you SHOULDN'T be beaten up for questioning that model" <- I agree with you here too. That's science, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not how it works

The test of a computer model is whether it can predict what actually happened in the past, given information about what things were like earlier in the past.

[Chris Miller]

@AC 21:48

Making 'predictions' about the past is trivially easy. There are an infinite number of models that can match the (extremely sketchy) historic data. The difficult part, as Niels Bohr famously observed, is making predictions about the future.

Since Karl Popper's work, we have understood the definition of what constitutes science to be based on *falsifiability*. Science works by making predictions (about the future) and then trying to *disprove* them. We can never know with absolute certainty that any of our theories are 'true', but we can be sure that many obsolete theories have been demonstrated to be false.

The problem with climate modellers is that they make predictions and then, when the real world fails to match up, simply tweak one of the numerous parameters in their favoured model (e.g. not allowing sufficiently for pollution from Chinese coal burning, to take a recent example). There is (as far as I can tell) absolutely nothing that can occur in the real world that would cause them to reject their model(s). Climate modelling is therefore not a science, it is a religion.

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

If your model can't account for the data, ie: predict what actually happened in the past, then it cannot possibly be an accurate model. If it *can* predict what actually happened, it *may* be an accurate model and *may* have a better than chance ability to predict the future.

In that case, the hypotheses that it embodies have not been falsified, but that still does not entitle us to say we *know* they are true.

(I take it we can assume that the past used to be the future?)

[gzuckier]

" as far as we know,"

What do you mean "we", o benighted one? Include me out of your society of deliberate know nothings.

[breakfast]

Nail on the head

That is how it works. Now go and talk to some climatologists about data and models and get the view from real scientists working with real data about what is happening. If you understand the scientific method and you can follow the maths then you'll get a lot more out of that than reading endless articles of loose interpretation from either side.

The simple fact is that the evidence points in one direction. The real scientific evidence, not the cherry-picked lobbyist pseudo-data. In highly complex disciplines like this, you rarely hit datapoint for datapoint, but trends are predictable and the underlying physics is fairly simple. The people with the truth are rarely the people making the most noise.

The simple fact is that although most of us who work in a specialised field are aware of the complexities of our own area of specialisation, apparently any mook with a pipe and an armchair knows more about climate science than any of the people who have been studying it full time over decades.

[ph0b0s]

Two corrections, must proof read better, (really need an edit function here)

"Coming from a Scientific background, the way this works seems simple. YOU create a hypothesis. You then use that hypothesis to work out how things should behave (like in a computer model)."

"Again please correct me where my statements are incorrect, but I though this was a pretty simple concept in science that hypothesis has to match reality. And to debate this should NOT result in you being called a denier. People challenging E=MC^2 is perfectly fine in science."

[Naughtyhorse]

challenging E=MC^2 is perfectly fine in science

so long as you dont mind having albert hand your ass to you to use as a hat!

[Anonymous Coward]

challenging E=MC^2 is perfectly fine in science

providing you can ACTUALLY challenge it, not just want to vaguely wish it away. If you have ever tried to argue with a creationist, you will know exactly what I mean. Demanding equal time for science and non-science is a point of view, but it sure as hell isn't a debate WITHIN science!

[Anonymous Coward]

You really could have simplified your comment....

"There have been many computer models of what may happen in future,"

Have any been right?

[Naughtyhorse]

Now I know modelling the whole world's climate is not easy

quite right it's not easy, it's impossible.

absolutely impossible. By definition.

And the uncertainty in the models, which will always be there, is what the deniers have latched onto. they offer no models of their own to back up their therories, simply exploit the ignorance of the public re; science in general and mathematics in particular in debunking the CC work that is happening. (I.E if the models are good then they should work perfectly - they dont, never will... thats what chaos _means_)

As an earlier poster stated " the hockey stick model has been successfully proved wrong"

fact is that this has happened on at least 5 occasions, sadly on each occasion the methodology employed by the deniers wes demonstrated to be fundamentally flawed (most spectacularly when it turned out NASA didnt really know where it's satelites were!).

As you point out the Why is not at all proven, and i guess we need to wait until a couple of 100 years after the last barrel of oil has been burned to find out the truth on that, except of course it won't be us, it'll be the cockroaches - the only things capable of surviving big oils hubris, or the coming entirly natural eco-pocalipse.

[JeeBee]

Models are forever being improved

"Now I know modelling the whole world's climate is not easy. But one prediction was that the rate of increase in temperature was supposed to be increasing, which has not matched reality."

Then the scientists adjusted the model to account for China's increase in Coal Power Stations over the past few decades, and saw that the rise was offset by the dirty output of sulphates which reflect solar energy back into space (they also causes acid rain before you jump on it as the solution to climate change). They thus predict that when China cleans up its power stations, there will be a temperature bump.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14002264

I've been saying that people need to put their opinions on paper, and then pay up if they're wrong. So deniers can pay the trillions that last minute global warming prevention / coping with the outcomes will cause.

[gzuckier]

"Again please correct me where my statements are incorrect"

Ah, well I believe you are in error where you assume that the scientific community is going to come to your house and sit you down and discuss their findings with you, so that you never have to go searching for the evidence yourself. However, I have ten minutes to spare, so I will attempt to lead you to water. Ten seconds of Googling and we find http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html

First, check out the remarkable success of the now ancient and primitive original Hansen model from 23 years ago (Hansen's 2006 Graph Confirming 1988 Predictions)

as well as

" The following is a list of successful predictions made by the models:

Models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;

Models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere. For a while satellite readings seemed to disagree but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors due to changing orbit (gravity pulling on satellite), sensor issues, etc and on correction, this warming has been observed;

Mears et al, Santer et al and Sherwood et al show that the discrepancy has been mostly resolved, in favor of the models.

Models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed.

Models have successfully reconstructed ocean heat content.

Models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;

Models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;

Models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;

Models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and as you can see from figures 2 & 3, they have had a very good track record."

Of course, if you refuse to do your homework and follow up on these assertions, you can still sit there and complain that the scientific community hasn't proved it to you. That's not what they're paid to do, though.

Meanwhile, exactly what prediction/model has ever come from the What Me Warming? crowd that has ever come in any way close to being validated? And on a related note, anyone who's still thinking the infamous "lack of warming since 1998" predicts the end of the warming trend, can easily estimate the validity of that prediction, by simply counting the similar downward trends of temps over a few years over the background of unambiguously increasing temperatures over the past century, or 30 years, or whatever period you'd like to pick.

[jason 7]

I had a laugh the other week

I went to a closed forum where the UEA was having a days long discussion with select members of the public about eco factors and climate change.

They were asking folks about the environment etc.and all looking quite smug. It was all warm and cosy..until I stepped up.

The question was where do you get your information on the environment from and how it shapes your opinion. Most folks it seems get theirs from the backs of fag packets. I said I was skeptical. Why? they asked.

I replied "ohhh I dunno maybe the whole UEA sexed up climate change documents scandal from 18 months ago? You know the one, if the data doesnt fit your opinion make it fit!"

Christ you could have heard a pin drop. It felt so good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems odd

I assume the people asking questions were from UEA itself and not CRU, or they should have quickly batted back that, ignoring the media frenzy, three different investigations (that I know of) concluded that the only thing the scientists were guilty of was being really disorganised and not sharing their research clearly.

True, it was a PR nightmare for UEA and AGW-proponents, but it was pretty telling that the media barely covered the fact that they hadn't been fiddling the data.

I only have a link for one of the investigations: http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

Feel free to look up the rest. Pages 47 and 48 are the most interesting as they cover the "fiddled" data (and how it wasn't, at least not in the way the media reported it).

[Anonymous Coward]

Downvotes

I've clearly missed something if having the gall to back up statements with official reports is worthy of downvoting.

I didn't take a stance on AGW, so I can only assume it was either my slightly anti-media tone (but not unfair, I think) or that people take offense to reading PDFs...

Maybe I should have worded the "three different investigations" bit differently; having read a little more since yesterday it would now be more accurate to say: "every investigation (I've found six)"

[Arthur Dent]

Re: "seems odd"

"three different investigations (that I know of) concluded that the only thing the scientists were guilty of was being really disorganised and not sharing their research clearly"

I guess those three include the CCE Review report to which you refer later. Frankly, anyone who reads section 4.2 8 of that report is likely to form the conclusion that this was a whitewash determined in advance (erroneously, I think, as 6.6 32 is very damaging to the reputation of the scientists concerned - but it does seem clear that this describes an attempt to adjust the data to better fit the model - it's also true that it was a pretty unsuccessful attempt - so perhaps it was only an attempt and not real data fiddling, and i seems odd that the review didn't have a finding that that was bad practise despite its ineffectiveness; we have to ask perhaps if it was one of a serious of such attempts, which Jones' email does seem to suggest).

The immediately ensuing paragraphs indicate very clearly that the CRU people weren't "disorganised and not sharing their research clearly" as you claim but, rather, well-organised and determined to ensure that their research was not shared. Put this together with the statement that the review body didn't have the resources to analyse all the data (other emails etcetera) and the quoted emails that indicated that large amounts of other email had been miraculously deleted just before FOI requests arrived and it makes one very suspicious of anything that came out of CRU.

And of course the most interesting piece of the report is one you clearly didn't read: section 6.4 24 on page 49 - clearly the review did not establish the correctness of the CRU's conclusions or even attempt to analyse the alleged deficiencies in their methods (the latter was, I think, the cause of the select committee's very negative reaction to this report)

[JeeBee]

Re: I had a laugh the other week

I replied "ohhh I dunno maybe the whole UEA sexed up climate change documents scandal from 18 months ago? You know the one, if the data doesnt fit your opinion make it fit!"

Of course the inquiry found that the actual science performed was without fault.

The whole situation told us what we already knew - scientists are humans too and get angry and frustrated when people are boneheaded ignorant.

I'll believe the scientists working for small academic wages over the minority who seem to be getting paid a lot by big oil.

[Frank Fisher]

Not it didn't...

"Of course the inquiry found that the actual science performed was without fault."

The inquiries didn't look at the science. If you can call piddling around with models 'science'.

[Arthur Dent]

@JeeBee

"Of course the inquiry found that the actual science performed was without fault."

It found nothing of the sort. The report of the enquiry states:

24. It should be noted that in making these findings, the Review Team is making no

statement regarding the correctness of any of these analyses in representing global

temperature trends. We do not address any alleged deficiencies such as allowance

for non climatic effects or the significant drop in station number post 1991. We do

not address any possible deficiencies of the method. These are entirely matters for

proper scientific study and debate and lie outside the scope of this Review.

In other words, the review didn't address the question of whether the science was without fault: it addressed only the questions of whether there was any provable deliberate falsification of results (and, if you read the report, you will see that it found none - because althought it looks as if there was an attempt at fiddling by cherry picking data it was, if it did happen, an unsuccessful attempt) and whether proper disclosure of the data used was made to scientists who requested it - the enquiry concluded that it wasn't and made a formal finding to that effect:

32. Finding: The Review finds that as a matter of good scientific practice (and having

established the precedent with CRUTEM1986) CRU should have made available

an unambiguous list of the stations used in each of the versions of CRUTEM at

the time of publication. In the absence of this, CRU was unhelpful and defensive

and should have responded throughout to requests for this information in a more

timely way.

[Geoffrey W]

@I had a laugh the other week

Smug? You accuse "Them" of being smug?

So what actual scientific data did you present to gatecrash their little party and make them cry? Other than a silly, and rather suspect, ad hominem attack?

I suspect their silence was more akin to the silence that would ensue if at a royal garden party someone dropped their pants and shit on the floor. Its more likely embarrassment. But then again, I wasn't there so who knows? May it really was the blinding light of truth revealed that stunned them into shock.

[Michael H.F. Wilkinson]

As if science should be based on consensus?

Science makes progress whenever there is a lack of consensus. When everybody agrees, and we therefore think we are right (for a given value of right), and there is little incentive to refine our knowledge.

By contrast, whenever we disagree we work hard to prove the other guy/girl wrong. In the best cases, we do that indirectly, by trying to prove ourselves wrong. If we fail to prove our theory wrong, it may be right.

As an example, astronomy progressed a great deal simply from being annoyed by Fred Hoyle, who proposed preposterous (they thought) theories which were consistent both internally, and with observations (at the time), and very hard to prove wrong. They often were proved wrong, but the proof taught us a great deal.

If all scientists vote on an issue, say global warming, the outcome has no effect on the truth of the matter. Suggesting global warning has been proven beyond all doubt is not very scientific.

[Cameron Colley]

But what about all the non science programmes and those not supposed to be about Carbon warming?

They may give voice to a couple of "deniers" but it's hard to notice when every single program which mentions anything vaguely weather or environment related bleats on about "because of global warming" or "because of all the carbon". Any time an animal is mentioned that may be near extinction it's because of "<actual reason> and Climate Change". When they're talking about architecture you'll hear talk of Carbon Footprint all the time. Let's face it, some of us may be skeptical about the causes and extent of global warming -- but from the BBCs programmes you'd never guess.

@Jess:

I've been saying for a long time that we need to prepare for warming whilst being as environmentally and energy aware as possible. I'm convinced that the way things are being dealt with we're screwed if the warming is caused by Carbon -- because we will not stop releasing it as a species and nobody gives a thought to coping with the consequences.

[Naughtyhorse]

Top

Gear

STFU

[Cameron Colley]

Don't know why I'm bothering, but...

Top Gear is an entertainment programme fronted by men who are deliberately "controversial", it hardly provides and alternative to every other programme mentioning Ciarcon every time there's the slighttest suggestion it may, possibly, at a pinch, be relevant. If anything Top Gear gives "deniars" a bad name.

[Anonymous Coward]

Carbon Footprint

is a consideration in architecture because it reflects energy efficiency and has PR significance whether or not human produced CO2 is a major influence on the climate. If the BBC reports on how architects describe their own work, that is not expressing an opinion about climate change.

[Big_Boomer]

Great idea,....

abolish the BBC and leave us with 100's of channels of endless repeats of mindless vampire "dramas" and similar shite. I'm sorry you don't like the BBC a great many of us do. We hate having to sit through endless adverts, we hate the "lowest common denominator" targeting that most TV shows are now made for, and we hate being told what to think, or in many cases not to think. If you don't like it, don't watch it. If you don't want to pay for it, move abroad! I've lived all over the world and there is NOWHERE that has TV as good as the UK and its because of the BBC.

As for climate change, its been changing for billions of years and will keep on changing for billions of years. It doesn't care if homo-sapiens wipes itself out or if an asteroid/super-volcano/aliens/disease wipes us out,..... or not. The climate will change. Undoubtedly some of the recent change is man made, some may be due to the likely Maunder minimum we will shortly be dealing with, some may be due to spontaneous methane releases from methane hydrate deposits in the oceans. These all or nothing merchants are only trying to drum up more funding for their research. Otherwise they'd shut up and just do the research.

[ChilliKwok]

BBC is so great

2nd para is great. First para... not so much.

US TV: The Soprano's, The Wire, Mad Men, The Walking Dead, I'll Fly Away, LA Law, ER, Scrubs, Cheers, Friends, Frazier, Curb, BSG, SouthPark, The Simpsons..... the list goes on

BBC: Strictly Come Dancing, countless cheapo makeover and cookery programs. Endless 'comedy' shows with smug lefties Russell Howard, Bridstocke & Stephen Fry. Oh not to mention hours of pointless waffle from leftwingdbags like Simon Schama

Yay - BBC wins hands down. It's so great!

[Ben Liddicott]

If you like it so much you'll pay for it on subscription or pay-per-view, won't you?

Er, wait, no, the BBC sabotaged the digital broadcasting standards in this country to rip out the facility to do pay-per-view... I wonder why they did that? Surely not because it would undermine the case for the telly tax...

[jason 7]

Global Warming is the wrong poster child for the environment

Global warming is too devisive. You show me a chart showing an increase I bet I can find a chart showing the opposite from just as reliable a source.

The Eco crowd should drop it and go back to basics. Why not go under the banner of "Pollution"?

Folks can get to grips with that as a concept. We can see polluted rivers. We can see mounds of rubbish and smoke. We can all agree its not good. If we then set about dealing with and cleaning up "Pollution" then chances are we will also indirectly/directly also deal with the factors that may or may not be causing global warming.

Global warming is just an uphill struggle. Deal with stuff folks can actually see.

[Anonymous Coward]

RE:Global Warming is the wrong poster child for the environment

it is a dangerous poster child for the environment, but there is too much money to be made in it. Politicians can tax us all to the hilt in the name of "saving the planet" and have it not be a vote loser, whole markets of "carbon trading" have sprung up to make money off it.

Clearing up pollution? No money to be made there, its all a cost.

[dotdavid]

Absolutely

I've always been ambivilent towards the whole AGW argument, but I can see the attraction of "going green" in other ways.

1) Energy-efficient lightbulbs and other devices save me money on my electricity bill.

2) Better insulation does the same for my heating bills.

3) Less petrol/diesel cars around will mean less pollution on my way to work (although perhaps only if we have similarly "green" power stations).

4) Recycling lets my council sell some of my household waste, supposedly subsidising it a little (not sure if I *quite* believe the council's leaflets with this, but whatever).

Saying not doing this sort of thing will cause the sky to fall on my head isn't as good a motivation, IMHO. They need to find a better banner to rally behind.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Absolutely

I agree, "going green" is a good thing, reducing our need for non-renewable fuels etc - but its the rod of "CLIMATE CHANGE" that gets up peoples noses.

[MarkieMark1]

Hence the phrase

"carbon pollution"

it really is a field of often surprisingly self-serving language

[Studley]

But, of course, the BBC spin it the way they want

I had to laugh when this collection of related articles popped up in my Google News feed this morning. Spot why the BBC News headline is the odd one out:

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/4244/impartialityfail.png

[Gavin McMenemy]

Another attack on the BBC?

Yeah I get it, you don't like the Beeb. I really do... now can you talk about science please.

[JasonW]

Isn't the real problem with science reporting...

... that they send clueless journalists (mostly I imagine with non-scientific/non-technical backgrounds) with no idea of the basics of science to ask the questions?

If you parse through the science, technology etc reporting in most (if not all) of the mainstream media, there's an awful lot of lazy incompetent reporting - mostly based on press-releases with no mention that it's the case (and sometimes even reporting the content incorrectly because they don't understand what the words on it mean in context).

[Michael H.F. Wilkinson]

I live in the Netherlands

but still watch Beeb more than most other channels

[Anonymous Coward]

Gosh, no mention of the other scientific areas in the report

His report wasn't about climate science. It was about scientific reporting in general but for some reason AO doesn't give a fuck about that.

The fundamental problem is that journalists think that "balanced reporting" means grabbing an opposing view from loud people instead of a scientist who actually works in the field and is within the bounds of reasonable consensus.

The same practice that gives you deniers instead of climate scientists with different views also gives you Greenpeace spouting crap on every piece on nuclear power and GM.

[Neil 51]

Hey kettle, you know what you are...

I find that if I open the BBC's 'only-write-pro-MMGW-articles' site in one tab and El Reg's 'only-write-anti-MMGW-articles' in the other, by flicking between the two quickly enough I can actually get a balanced view.

Or lose any semblance of hope that either of my two most-visited sites will one day actually do some unbiased reporting on the issue. Whichever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor Logic

Any degree of truth is never found through "balance". This is something the BBC are frequently guilty of.

The level of science reporting on the BBC and the register balance each other out. But only because they are equally shit, pandering to people who can't actually reach their own conclusions.

Stick to science journals. It takes effort but it's worth it.

[Frederic Bloggs]

Consensus or Dogma?

There is real evidence that the average temperature is going up. There is a majority opinion amongst climate researchers that bad things are going to happen and that carbon dioxide is the culprit. There are a significant minority who say: "prove it".

At which point a great deal of hand waving and misdirection, by both sides, occurs. Because neither side can produce a model or explanation (mathematical or otherwise) that fit the facts, even reasonably vaguely.

It seems to me that the climate change debate is just that. The majority say one thing which is called "consensus". The minority say something else which the majority call "dogma" or "denial". These terms are, currently, entirely interchangeable.

Show me some testable causal evidence for what is going on. Please.

Then: I will believe.

[Dodgy Geezer]

Consensus or dogma response...

"...Show me some testable causal evidence for what is going on. Please."

There are not really two sides arguing over mathematical models. There is one side providing a succession of 'evidence' which the other side keeps shooting down. It is up to you which of those sides you believe.

As an example, the AGW models all claimed that the world would keep getting hotter. We have now had a dozen years of essentially flat temperatures. So the AGW supporters now claim that it must be Chinese soot bringing the temperature down (though they also claim that there are more hurricanes). So the anti-AGW crowd point out that satellites now detect smaller hurricanes. So it goes on.

I think that the best evidence is found in the maths for Mann's original hockey-stick graph, which was undoubtedly fudged. The world authority on Principle Component Analysis said as much. If you need to fudge evidence, there is obviously something wrong.

Oh, and everyone keeps very quiet about the tropospheric 'hot-spot'. This was the single unique prediction made by all the models which would unquestionably show that increased CO2 in the atmosphere was generating extra heat.

It has never been found.....

[Michael H.F. Wilkinson]

Say not: I will believe

say: I will understand

;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Lazy 'journalists'

"Jones found that 75 per cent of the BBC's science stories were based on a single press release, and seven out of eight of those only feature the source – there is no additional view to the story."

In other words, even the BBC, with their corporate procedures and management, and the unique way it's funded, are just as lazy as any other mainstream news outlet.

They just shuffle the words of press releases and offer them as 'articles' by writers too busy feeling cool and sexy as they play with their iProducts and keep up with each other every time a new one comes out.

Just look at how BBC news recently repeated the same inaccurate information about Doctor Who - A BBC show! None of them even bothered to dial the switchboard extension for the Doctor Who office and ask them first-hand.

I'm not a BBC basher, but if The Sun want to be lazy, it's their money and they're welcome to do as they please. But TV viewers are paying for the BBC, and as much as we all expect something extra when it comes to BBC drama (and don't the BBC love to tell us at every opportunity how great there are at that), we should also expect the same when it comes to news.

I remember them being criticised for being very late reporting some breaking news stories, including 7/7. The excuse was that they wanted to confirm the stories before broadcasting them, in order to avoid the common mistakes Sky make in rushing 'facts' out too quickly. But then for the rest of the time when there isn't a 7/7 going on, they just rehash press releases.

And to be fair, The Register does it's fair share of that. How many new major releases of software come out (even free software like browsers) and the report on here is just a rehash of the official press release, complete with official statistics for how much better/faster it is? Would it really be too much effort to download the new browser, try it out for a bit (I'm sure the techies working at The Register can find their way around a new browser and its features quite quickly) and then write your articles, reporting how much faster and memory hungry you found it to be?

Blogs are often private messageboards, where the only poster is trying to write like a journalist, whilst the journalists on real news sites are all too often writing glorified blog entries. Thankfully, that doesn't include Andrew Orlowski on here, though many are — as they are at Another Place™ (unless they're just plagiarising El Reg).

[Pete 2]

Is it hot in here?

So far as climate change goes, the issue isn't whether the planet is getting warmer[1]. The arguments are about whether mankind needs to do anything about it and if so, what.

The problem with that is there are too many vested interests: from scientists who are paid from the grants they get to investigate (and who would be out of work if the answer turned out to be "no" and "none") and are therefore, themselves a dependent variable - through to companies that make an enormous amount of money (although money is really just a manifestation of expended energy) to create and then satisfy consumer demand based on the fear they generate - through to governments who have identified potential vote-winning strategies based the "yays" or the "nays", and will therefore cultivate those views for their own self-preservation.

All we can say is that historically, most research turns out to be wrong. Most commercial products turn out to be failures and almost every single government strategy turns out to be a monumental waste of time, money and effort. So whether climate change is something we should be concerned about - or not, there is no possibility that the forces at play right now are in any position to make clear, independent and unequivocal statements of degree, outcomes or remediation. At present it's just another religion.

[1] For a purely dispassionate answer, ask yourself: How many times in 100 years would you expect the statement "this is the warmest summer for 100 years" to hold true if temperature fluctuations were truly random. For extra points, find out how many times it HAS been true. What conclusion is drawn from this?

[stevie11]

Jones is the idiot man

Hes an idiot, he needs to shut up. http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/graphics/icons/comment/fail_32.png

[ArmanX]

Interesting...

I've noticed that the posts most likely to get a downvote fall into one of three categories:

1) Trolling: if someone is are obviously and intentionally posting flame bait, that post will get you downvoted into oblivion.

2) Being flat out wrong: posting that 5+5 = 12, the answer to Life the Universe and Everything is 41, or that Doctor Who always had his sonic screwdriver will get you downvoted quite harshly.

3) Posting about climate change: be you a denier, an alarmist, or merely refuting a statement by one, you'll get all sorts of downvotes. Even if the original poster falls into one of the two above classes ("Anyone who thinks climate change is real is a stupid head!" or "Al Gore was right!"), the post refuting their statement will also be downvoted *just for being near the topic*.

That said, I'm expecting a few downvotes myself, simply for mentioning climate change at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Interesting...

Curiously the postings I've had the most upvotes on have been ones where I've been challenging AGW enthusiasts to 'leave out the attitude and bring on the science'.

To be fair, I got a few downvotes too, but it was clear the Guardian crowd were in town that day, so that was to be expected.

[nyelvmark]

Downvoting

In one AGW debate here recently, I posted - without comment - a link to monthly atmospheric CO2 readings at Mauna Loa from 1958 until today. This pure data attracted more downvotes than upvotes.

Go figure.

Here's the link:

http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/noaa-mauna-loa-co2-data.html

[Alfie]

Science?

What the heck-fire has Jeremy Vine got to do with science?

Poking Daily Wail readers with sticks isnt science!

[IanPotter]

RE: Science

"Poking Daily Wail readers with sticks isnt science"

Yeah! Totally futile, they don't even blink. Cattle prods now...

[Not Stupid]

Give me a break

Any of the idiots on here who think climate change isn't real are complete idiots. Go study the science rather than journalism or arts you muppets. There is no real debate, it is and will happen - the issue is how far it goes and how we manage it. GROW UP.

[Grumpy Old Fart]

All growed up

Grown up...check

Not stupid...check

Not convinced yet of the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming...check

Sorry, but Climategate & the undoubted fudging of Mann's Hockey Stick started me down a road of sceptical inquiry that has since discovered many many more such blunders, fudges and half-truths.

Too many to list here or reference, but the main one that is still unanswered in any reasonable fashion is the missing hotspot. It's the single most observable prediction from the climate models that predict warming, and it's still missing in the real world.

And no, I'm not an oil shill or gas-guzzler. I really believe in reducing my impact on the earth's resources, I don't own a car, buy used goods as much as possible, only buy locally-produced food, etc. But I don't agree with spending vast amounts of money trying to reduce our carbon emissions when we could spend it to so much better effect elsewhere (tackling global poverty for example, which would help reduce overpopulation and have a vastly more beneficial effect on the environment than any amount of carbon emission reduction).

[Graham Jordan]

Too much time for sceptics?

Me thinks he means not enough.

Funny how the BBC hasn't updated its anual artic ice coverage show-a-ma-graph for quite some time, you know, the time in which the artic ice hasn't shrunk considerably.

If I just happened to have missed that article someone please do link to it, oh how I love to chuckle at the expanding ice as the sun spots decline.

[Dan Paul]

There's too many Global Warming promoters, not enough deniers!

I am getting fed up with the tendency of media to take the word of "Scientists" as gospel.

In fact, MMGW appears to be a fundementalist cult of quasi-religious fools who made up their minds once and can never be conviced by any amount of contrary data that they may be dead wrong.

The fact is that there are 13 active volcanoes at this time, spewing out millions of tons of acknowledged greenhouse gases and dust and no one is tying this recent hot spell to that primary contributing factor.

The MMGW people are stuck with their heads in the sand and the media (in general) are ignoring the real immediate causes of GW.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not volcanoes

'The fact is that there are 13 active volcanoes at this time, spewing out millions of tons of acknowledged greenhouse gases and dust and no one is tying this recent hot spell to that primary contributing factor.'

That'd be because none of the eruptions going on right now are large enough to have a significant warming or cooling effect I expect. I don't think there's been an eruption over VEI 5 for nearly 20 years and no overall increase in the number of eruptions in that period, so there doesn't even seem to be a correlation (let alone a causation) between them and recent global temperature trends.

Volcanoes 0.3 Gt CO2 pa. Humans 29 Gt CO2 pa.

[blueprint]

BBC bashing seems to be in vogue

Amazing the amount of BBC bashing that's going on at the moment. Especially from the Conservatives and their press lackeys, who seem to think that one of the most conservative institutions in the UK is in fact a hotbed of lefty radicalism.

How any organisation that foists something as lamentable as The Archers on us can be considered left-wing is beyond me.

[Chris Miller]

You clearly have never listened to The Archers

and there's no reason why anyone should; but if you had, you would be familiar with the program rules:

1) All businessmen are evil.

2) All organic farmers are good.

3) All women are superhuman; coping easily with every imaginable difficulty.

4) All men are either:

a) evil - see (1);

b) nice, but dim; or

c) gay, in which case they are considered honorary women.

[Hayden Clark]

b) class has been eliminated.

N Pargetter - RIP.

[Maty]

Some easy questions ...

Has anyone correlated the heat signatures of Mars and Venus with Earth? Is solar activity warming other planets?

How much has the average global temperature risen in the past two decades?

All the articles I've read on the BBC and elsewhere don't seem to have the answer, yet it is hard to discuss AGW without this basic information.

[Michael H.F. Wilkinson]

Some very good questions indeed

I have read one report that the ice caps of Mars are receding, but the mechanism is not fully understood. We also don't have temperature readings over anything like the period we have for Earth. Venus is even more difficult, because it really is a runaway greenhouse, and surface probes do not tend to survive for any length of time (the Russians hold the record, I think). I remember reading a letter in Science in about 1989, that some Danish astronomers (IIRC) had found a 98% correlation between sunspot activity and temperature on Earth, over a period of some 150 years. That is quite a coincidence supposing there is no causal link.

Again, it is definitely wise to move towards more sustainable energy sources, but I am certainly not sure the solar cycle is not involved in some way.

[NomNomNom]

In fact

"Again, it is definitely wise to move towards more sustainable energy sources, but I am certainly not sure the solar cycle is not involved in some way."

That's the thing. It is involved, it contributes a cycle of magnitude ~0.1C over 11 years. Hence when skeptics argue warming slowed down over the last 10 years, it just so happens that period ends with a very low solar cycle minimum so....

[Anonymous Coward]

Mars and Venus

You won't be too surprised to know that temperature records for both planet are patchy.

For Venus, well we really have a very primitive understanding of the Venusian atmosphere and how it circulates heat. It is about 100 times the mass of the Earth, so we do know it holds a huge amount of heat and changes very slowly. A Japanese probe which would have performed long term measurements of the atmosphere failed to enter Venusian orbit in 2010. At the moment there are no probes planned to do that task.

We have better records for Mars going back to Viking in the mid 1970s. On a planet wide scale the atmosphere has cooled noticeably since Viking which arrived at the end of a long period of planet-scaled dust storms. The storms served to warm the atmosphere and probably pushed temperature above trend.

There was a large retreat of the Southern Polar ice cap on Mars from 2001 to (IIRC) 2005, but this was not seen elsewhere on the planet. It is thought this was a regional effect caused by dark dust being carried from equatorial regions towards the pole. The dust absorbed heat and melted the ice. But even this is uncertain as the Southern Cap is very thin, some years it disappears entirely, others it persists.

[DaWolf]

answers

A) Yes, other planets have had comparisons done, some have gone up in temp slightly, some down slightly. Mostly explainable by orbital differences. And by slightly, I mean an order of magnitude less than on earth.

B) Somewhere in the range of 0.1-0.2 degrees c.

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends how you measure it

'How much has the average global temperature risen in the past two decades?'

Roughly 0.25 - 0.3 C since 1990.

Here's a good capsule summary with lots of plots:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

[John 78]

Mars was getting warmer

I know John Redwood MP asked a question about this in parliment :-

The surface of Mars is heating up, but have they yet found the 4x4 SUV's that must be causing it.

Of course this wouldn't be covered by the biased BBC and other MSM.

[NomNomNom]

Mars getting warmer?

According to who? Me thinks thats outdated and by now probably false information. Not only is it irrelevant, and misleading, but probably false.

The BBC would have to be biased to push that.

[Dave Rickmers]

There are not two sides to a fact

We should proceed as if the worst predictions and more are currently coming true, because they are. The models are wrong; warming is happening faster than predicted.

To watch you argue over the validity of something that is already happening outside your window is fascinating.

[Michael H.F. Wilkinson]

Actually, some "facts" are routinely manipulated

Like the output of weather stations in the USA to "correct for changes in the station's environment." This is not a good idea, it is better to let the raw data out, and explain any trends later. Anyway, the debate is not so much about climate change per se, but about the underlying causes. As we cannot see the causes, only correlations, it makes perfect sense to argue about that. It might well be argued that the Earth is unusually cold (starting in the Pleistocene), or that we are in an interglacial era.

Whatever the outcome of the debate, we still should not be wasting energy and other resources.

[Liam Johnson]

happening outside your window

I assume you are writing from the USA, here in Europe there weather outside my window is distinctly chilly.

Of course, local weather is not necessarily an indicator of global climate.

[wiggers]

Climates Change...

...deal with it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jones-geneticist

In one of my previous lives on the staff at a Russell Group University, I came across many extremely bright people, highly qualified and experts in their own field. But I also became aware that some were supremely arrogant and automatically assumed that their expertise automatically applied to areas in which they had zero, or very recently acquired and minimal experience. They required very careful handling to ensure they did not make stupid intellectual assumptions outside their own areas. One assumes the BBC employed this man because they recognised the name...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some proof of that

Almost every climate story on the BBC involves Nigel Lawson being dragged up to claim he's not denying anthropogenic climate change, but...

The toxic old scrote is nearly as ignorant about science as he is about his forte of economics, but he appears to be given some credibility thanks being ennobled.

If the BBC could actually find some credible scientists who had problems with climate change science then it might not be quite so as infuriating.

But strangely, they seem to be few and far between.

Odd that.

[IanPotter]

RE: Some proof of that

"If the BBC could actually find some credible scientists who had problems with climate change science then it might not be quite so as infuriating."

Freeman Dyson?

[Chris Miller]

Nigel Lawson

The discussion on the Today programme mentioned this point. But the reasons we need to include economists and politicians in the debate is that, while science may eventually be able to settle what is happening and what will happen it is necessarily silent about what should therefore be done. These are (inter alia) political and economic questions, upon which it is perfectly reasonable for Lord Lawson to comment.

[nyelvmark]

Tautology

Absolutely. We should only believe credible scientists.

[Mutantone]

What part of fake is misunderstood?

The so called scientist came out and explained how they had fudged the numbers to get the results. When that did not work they changed it from Global Cooling, then global Warming now it is just climate change sort of a catch all phrase like "fish" no mention of what kind fresh or salt water so now they can say "See we told you so!"

[Nick Galloway]

Recurring history

I think Mr Jones is not too far wrong when he speaks of journalists being lazy, el Reg being the exception!

The media is more attentive to reporting rather than journalism and journalists are supposed to be sceptical or least challenge the material they receive. I wonder what the position would have been had the braodcaster been established at the time of Galileo. I suppose he would have been classified an Aristotelean sceptic and simply wrong. The accepted knowledge was the sun went around the earth and that was that!

Debate is not balanced and generally those providing challenge to the accepted wisdom require more time to illustrate their point. I thought democracy was all about allowing people to have a voice, in much the same way the trade unions seem to get a greater amount of air time than business leaders.

Make reporters into journalists and don't try to stop climate change, just get ready for it!

[John Savard]

True Enough

I know that Reuters' Science Daily site largely features news releases - and I do remember a few a year or two back that should not have been reported uncritically. Thus this is a potential problem, and I can believe the BBC might have it.

However, Reuters, at least, seems to have cleaned up its act, because I haven't encountered lately anything presenting speculative new theories as newly discovered fact there - so they have someone sifting through those press releases who knows what he's doing now.

[Jim 59]

Agree with the Doc

I agree that too much weight is given to attractive views held by 0.01% of scientists, and too little to the other 99.99%. Listening to the BBC (and ITV), you would think that global warming is a lively debate, split perhaps 60-40, not a well documented phenomenon that we need to plan for.

Unfortunately, the "man in the street" will seize on any non-global-warming research with great happiness, for obvious reasons, especially if the BBC promulgates it. His grand children will not thank him.

[Richard Porter]

Non sequitur

Jones also claims "95% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from natural sources

while in fact human activity has been responsible for a 40% rise in concentration"

There's nothing contradictory about these two statements. If the concentration due to human activity had increased from 3.57% to 5% that would be roughly a 40% rise. In any case, over what timescale? At one time there was no CO2 coming from human activity because there were no humans.

Anyway the fact that climate is changing is not in dispute - it always has been changing. What is up for debate is whether there's any point in the current preoccupation with Canutism or whether we would be better engaged concentrating on how to live with climate change. Fiddling around with a few wind farms here and there is totally insignificant compared to the likes of Eyjafjallajökull.

[nyelvmark]

Canutism

A good word for it. Thank you.

[Scorchio!!]

Data?

The twerp offers no data, no evidence, to back up his claims about critics of the BBC, aside from his cod psychology, which is barely digestible.

The Beeb is too large. Like everything the last government touched it has outgrown the house. It has become a powerhouse in the political correctness industry, and it takes good ideas to extremes.

[Paddy_Hadley]

Steve Jones - "Deniers"

I hope that the GWPF is going to seek a judicial review of the BBC Trust's acceptance of the Steve Jones report on science coverage. There is a legal requirement for the BBC to be impartial and balanced on controversial issues, and the BBC Trust has the duty to enforce this. To accept a report from Jones that repeatedly uses the offensive terms "denier" and "denial" is clearly a breach of that duty.

If the Trust had commissioned a report on BBC coverage of racism which referred to black people as "Ni***rs", or on homosexuality which talked about gay people as "Queers" they would have rejected it because of the terms used. Apart from the offence caused in the language, using insults to describe people would have proved ipso facto prejudice on the part of the writer.

A few years ago the BBC governors asked Malcolm Balen to review the BBC's coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Imagine if Mr Balen had written a report routinely calling the Jews "Yids" or the Palestinians "Ragheads". Would the governors have accepted that report? Of course not. It would have been rejected out of hand because the terms used would have showed that the writer was either prejudiced or extremely ignorant.

If Steve Jones does not know that it is very offensive to describe people who are not believers in catastrophic AGW as "deniers" then he is unfit to produce a report on the coverage of the subject.

There is no need to go through the arguments used by Jones to dismiss the complaints of sceptics, since his use of the term "denier" disqualifies him from the task he was given and means that the BBC Trust has acted unlawfully in accepting his report.

[Anonymous Coward]

Global warming is a fact

The deniers are the same kind of fools who buried their heads in the sand about smoking causing cancer and lung disease. By the time they realise it will be too late.

Using the term 'deniers' is not prejudiced. Scientific evidence tells us that global warming is a fact. Those people who claim it does not exist are 'deniers' as much as if they claimed gravity does not exist. Whether it is caused by man is irrelevant because it will kill us either way and needs to be acted upon. The evidence strongly suggests that it IS manmade but further to that not even oil backed scientists try to deny that we could influence warming if we take action.

I am surprised that there are so many ignorant people on here, I always thought in the past that the readership was generally more intelligent.

[Scorchio!!]

Re: Global warming is a fact

"The deniers" [...]

Firstly, when people use the argumentum ad hominem, use aggression and and subjective terminology they are *not* going to recruit the sympathy, insight and cooperation of their targets. They will in fact inspire negative reactions, and that is piss poor psychology.

Secondly, the correct term is 'climate change'. This refers to the confusing constellation of phenomena, whereby some oceans have higher water levels than others, some countries have experienced drops in temperature, some countries have experienced increases in temperature, and so on. It's noteworthy that some species have had to migrate either upward or toward the pole in their hemisphere, because of local changes in temperature, and so on.

It's also worth noting that the immediate international restrictions on air traffic, particularly in the US, immediately after the WTC disaster resulted in brighter skies. A scientist in Israel had been measuring sunlight levels for some years and observed that the immediate drop in aeronautical exhaust trails counteracted the phenomenon often termed 'global dimming'. Technically global dimming should cause temperature drops.

These various phenomena highlight the need for terms that do not favour any particular explanation. Currently in the UK we seem to be experiencing lower temperatures than those to which we had recently adjusted, which were far hotter. These phenomena do NOT mean that we should favour an explanation in one direction or another. Certainly the Atlantic heat conveyor has been affected by climate change, but even then it's not certain if this will result in colder or even warmer weather.

The only thing that I can say for sure is that most negative portrayals of the hockey stick data start with data from only a short time before the 'stick' appears. If all of the available data are plotted on the graph it looks different; as a scientist I take exception to such misrepresentation of the data, which is worse than 'curve fitting' or 'bending', and resembles more closely the activities of Procrustes, who cut off the legs of guests that were too big for his beds, and stretched the bodies of those who were 'too short'.

We have to take the data as they are, over as long a period of time as possible (it's the average, the general, that matters, not the particular), and similarly treat with the world in a manner that is not deleterious. That makes good sense; it makes sense not to cause acid rain (as we in the UK once inflicted on Scandinavian forests); it makes sense to find non polluting power sources for transport, heating and so on; it makes sense to reduce our population [see http://populationmatters.org/ ]; it makes sense to grind rocks down and return more trace elements and minerals to the earth, both to undo the damage that centuries of farming have done, and to eliminate our reliance on phosphates, stocks of which are running low, while it is also bad for the health of people living near to farms... ...it makes sense to eliminate CFCs and other contaminants from aerosols [...].

There are many reasons to change our behaviour. It makes sense to refer to the tangible, kickable reasons whilst demonstrating the effects of such changes; it does not make sense to use the argumentum ad hominem in the 'climate change' debate, because it may have a worse effect than not saying anything.

Finally, it makes sense to remove the heat from the argument and point to tangible reasons for eliminating behaviours that damage us and our environment. For example motor exhaust seems to have an effect on health. Cutting down trees and thereby destroying root cultures eliminates the ability of an ecosystem to retain moisture, causes floods and droughts, and results in poor crops. The bigger questions we can handle later, when more data have been accumulated. For the now we need to tackle the obvious stuff, or the baby will be thrown out by the bath water.

So why not lay off the argumentum ad hominem? Why not use more tactful methods of recruiting collaboration and cooperativeness from the people you oppose? It makes as much as sense as the principle of changing behaviour irrespective of the climate change, because they are inherently better for us.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please Professor do tell us from which fag packet you got that gem?

unless your just repeating what you heard sixth or seventh hand? Produce your evidence - notes in the margin...anything. Oh and 'a politician told me' is just bushwa. OK.

See proper scientists are skeptics unless they have proof, and as far as I am aware even the IPCC caveats it's pronouncements.

Such as its likely or evidence suggests etc. I don't believe the world is as black and white as your suggesting. My opinion is there are shades of gray on nearly all issues.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous Coward Please Professor do tell us from which fag packet you got that gem?

I think your intelligence and comprehension of the arguments about climate change and it's causes is admirably demonstrated by your post.

I am sorry for you, but your words speak for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does YOUR intelligence realise that ad - hominem attacks

merely confirm that you have no answer? That you've lost the argument?

Unless you have some facts you like to produce?

[Scorchio!!]

Re: Please Professor do tell us from which fag packet you got that gem?

The trouble with so many anonymous posters is it's impossible to tell who is addressing whom about what.

I've got a few links on species latitudinal, elevatory and (effectively) temporal migration and related international data on ice if you are interested. They are a useful elaboration on the principle of testing something in different modalities to see if its effects are consistent. That's not to say that I think the correct term is anything other than 'climate change'.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Global warming is a fact"?

"I am surprised that there are so many ignorant people on here, I always thought in the past that the readership was generally more intelligent."

So did I, until I read your post.

[BrentRBrian]

Bad science followed by bad journalism

No reason for journalists to hype bad science ....

Besides ... if the CO2 gets too deep, the problem will be solved ... I'm tall enough to survive it ...

[Terence McCarthy]

Bad science followed by bad journalism

"Besides ... if the CO2 gets too deep, the problem will be solved ... I'm tall enough to survive it ..."

But, apparently, not the increased risk of cancer!

Win, lose or draw, we eventually lose...

[Chris007]

Going to keep repeating this question until I get an answer

To those who believe in AGW - Answer the following question:-

Explain 1000ad - 1200ad warm period or mini ice-age using current IPCC models......

what's that...... you can't because there wasn't enough man-made CO2 production back then - oh dear....perhaps the climate is affected by something more significant than CO2 then.....

[Chris007]

and again

we have down votes but none prepared to explain why the down vote or answer the question.

Your silence is deafening...

[Anonymous Coward]

we have down votes but none prepared to explain why the down vote or answer the question.

Because no one is prepared to educate pork.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that yourself d'ere.....

Let me guess.....you heard it on the grapevine?

Would the OP's question be an inconvenient fact?

[Chris007]

You must be a believer

as all you can do is try and shout people down rather than ask a very rational question.

I notice that somebody said "No one is suggesting that ONLY atmospheric CO2 concentrations affect climate trends, what they are saying is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that there is a remarkable correlation between when we started emitting large concentrations of the stuff into the atmosphere and increases in global temperatures."

Eh? - first we're not saying it is primarily CO2 but because there is a remarkable correlation it must be primarily CO2.

Again my question is if CO2 is so important please explain the 1000-1200ad warming using CO2 or as many people have pointed out to you that because this period in time does not fit your "belief" that you simply ignore the question.

I will not stop asking this question until somebody gives a rational scientifically based answer - be prepared for it to be on every climate related topic on this website.

[jason 7]

I've seen it often.

Whenever I've seen the Environmentalists campaign against new nuclear or coal power stations. When the question gets asked - "Ok fair enough but what do you suggest as a viable alternative to help sustain all our growing energy needs over the next 100 years?"

It all goes very quiet then.

After all if the tax payers were not subsidising the windfarms they would all be shutdown for scrap within a week.

They dont build them to save the planet you know.

It's a moot point however. As we all know when folks find they cant charge up their iPads or play their Xbox360 they will be hammering on their MPs door demanding a nuclear powerstation yesterday. Environment be damned. Just a shame we'll have to wait till the last minute before it gets resolved.

[Scorchio!!]

Re: I've seen it often

" Whenever I've seen the Environmentalists campaign against new nuclear or coal power stations. When the question gets asked - "Ok fair enough but what do you suggest as a viable alternative to help sustain all our growing energy needs over the next 100 years?" "

Only nuclear can do it, but even then there are limits on the material used. Even if we crack fusion there is a limit. Sadly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Think you need to bone up a bit more Scorchio

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-fast-breeder-react

Reactors can be designed to maximize plutonium production, and in some cases they actually produce more fuel than they consume. These reactors are called breeder reactors.

Nuclear is the answer. Windmills just aren't.

[Scorchio!!]

Re: Think you need to bone up a bit more Scorchio

WTH? I don't see why you pick an argument. All forms of energy are finite. The source of nuclear energy is by definition finite.

If you looked more carefully you would see that I favour nuclear power in the long run. It has a better safety record than hydro, coal and the others, because so few have died from it and so little damage has been done to the environment, and better longevity.

Read Fred Hoyle, Energy or extinction: the case for nuclear energy [ Something I've quoted on Reg fora before: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Energy-Extinction-Case-Nuclear/dp/0435544314 ]. We have been floating on the carbon bonanza for a long time, and most of the alternatives are not a substitute. There are wave solutions, but not all countries have a coast, and not all countries have sufficient sunlight to make our inefficient use of solar power effective. I favour this form of wave energy: http://www.searaser.com/ It beats everything that I have so far seen, but it is not enough.

I have read a lot about the subject. I am aware of the poor returns from solar power. Some figures from FoTH and GP have become nuclear converts. There is nothing like a long cold winter (ah, Cinderella, how are you tonight?) to make educated hypocrites think. Renewable energy is as much a gamble as hydrocarbon solutions are. Read Hoyle, observe his calculations, and you will see why. Don't return with a culturally relative "that's old fashioned" response, it does not count. The maths do not add up. Renewables are good, but not good enough.

And you chose to pick an argument with me? Silly, silly, silly. I'm fairly objective about the spectrum of energy supply and I have fewer hangups with nuclear power.

[Fractal]

Flawed Reasoning

You are attacking a straw man by suggesting that because there are things that current models don't explain, they MUST be wrong. Another common flaw of creationists whom you claim you share no association with.

No one is suggesting that ONLY atmospheric CO2 concentrations affect climate trends, what they are saying is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that there is a remarkable correlation between when we started emitting large concentrations of the stuff into the atmosphere and increases in global temperatures.

To suggest there is some sort of eco conspiracy simply to make us pay more taxes is a ludicrous notion belonging only in such reasoned publications as the Daily Mail.

[Chris007]

I never said anybody was wrong

I simply wanted an answer to a question that NOBODY on the "believer" side of the argument is prepared to answer. I did say that this silence speaks volumes about their side of the argument.

I don't doubt that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher than they've been what I don't buy into is that this is a primary or even a major contributor to the current climate changes being seen.

My question about the 2 climate events (1000-1200ad and "mini ice age") is a perfectly rational one as neither can be attributed to man-made CO2 yet they were MORE extreme climate events than we're currently going through. This seems to me to suggest that something other than CO2 is the major (or even primary) contributor to climate change.

[Chris007]

Post of science editor to be created

Wonder if Mr Jones will put himself forward for that one.

God help us if he does and gets it

[Anonymous Coward]

The great lie...

AGW is a myth concocted to assist the United Nations with the Agenda 21 policy, humankind is to be our enemy so that people will accept the green communitarian, neo-feudalistic plan outlined within. This idea was outlined by the Club of Rome on their behalf many years ago. As the earlier poster pointed out first it was cooling, now it is warming or perhaps it is just "change".

I often see idiots post about how the climate change skeptics are funded by the oil/energy companies, but on closer examination the pro climate change people are also funded by the oil/energy companies. This is probably to confuse people as if you are confused enough you will simply not spend much time thinking about the subject at hand.

The BBC is a propoganda mouthpiece that pretty much does nothing but espouse the agenda by mentioning climate change at every opportunity since if they repeat it often enough it will become reality in the feeble minds of the dumb herd. This is more of such. They are their to give you your opinion, not to help you decide for yourself and as such there is no balanced opinion on any topic anyway merely the illusion of such.

The sky above your head has been geo-engineeered since about the mid nineties by the chemtrail planes which we are told do not exist. The cloud cover is being manipulated and I would imagine this has an effect on the temperatures anyway, the ionosphere is also being manipulated heavily with scalar technology. The army will own the weather by 2025 if they don't allready.

Sherlock icon to encourage some of you fine clever techies to go and do a little bit of investigation. His dear stalker is lined with tinfoil and that pipe is stoked with skunk to expand his awareness beyond the box.

[jason 7]

You know there is only one way we can save this planet.

We need to eliminate around 3 billion humans from the face of the earth.

Think about it. Its a far easier option than getting nearly 7 billion to change their minds and lifestyles.

[nyelvmark]

We need to eliminate around 3 billion humans

Good idea! That guy in Norway has made a start. Let's all go buy weapons and continue his work.

It's for the good of humanity.

[dannymot]

the usual journalistic scum style reporting

Dr Jones clearly has his head screwed on correctly. As usual the sceptics confuse the whole umbrella of climate change as a simple temperature increase.

Orlowski could do with actually taking in some of the Doctors comments instead of twisting every article about the environment into pathetic drivel.

There is an immense amount of evidence collected from unrelated scientists throughout the world that shows that we are living dangerously. Scientists happily point out the areas that are only theories based on facts.

The responce from people with zero scientific knowledge. To ignore the facts and demand conclusive proof on the areas that are largerly theoretical. To ingore the facts and write articles criticising the areas that have already been highlighted as being theoretical for...being theoretical.

Stupidity knows no bounds when it comes to journalism.

[Terence McCarthy]

"the usual journalistic scum style reporting"- Gets A Response To This Idiot

"Stupidity knows no bounds when it comes to journalism."

Or, indeed, to those who respond to reports with little or nothing to help them understand them.

As to your quoted comment, you are right, and you are clearly, by your own definition, a journalist- especially to the point of not checking your grammar or spelling when sending posts to a public forum.

However, a career at the Gruniad for you (with it's unique style and left-wing "pie n the sky" utopianism) is a distinct possibility. Good luck with that.

Apology: - I apologise, sincerely, to the journalists of El Reg to whom no similar criticism could possibly apply.

(Cheques to the usual account, please!)

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote: "the usual journalistic scum style reporting " (No, I Mean It!)

"The responce (sic) from people with zero scientific knowledge. To ignore the facts and demand conclusive proof on the areas that are largerly (sic) theoretical. To ingore (sic) the facts and write articles criticising the areas that have already been highlighted as being theoretical for...being theoretical.

Stupidity knows no bounds when it comes to journalism."

Nor, apparently, does it apply to some El Reg respondents, from stupid, ill-educated at best, semi-literate drivel from people like you.

Sad, but unfortunately true. Hey, even the "usual journalistic scum" (like, say, El Reg "journalistic scum" know how to use a transitive verb to make a sentence!

BTW what does "ingore" mean?

[dannymot]

ha ha ha ha

Ha ha that's it. Have a go at the typos. 1st class degree, A's in English GCSE and an IQ of 168. My education and intelligence is just tickety boo thanks. The thing is. I posted a quick comment designed to put across ideas. That is it. If you struggle with the the simple concept of quickly putting across ideas and the simple concept of appropriate grammar for appropriate situations that is your problem. Struggling to see the wood for the trees aren't we? Grammar is a servant of language and not its master.

[nyelvmark]

1st class degree, A's in English GCSE and an IQ of 168.

And yet...

[Terence McCarthy]

BBC "Science"?

"Purity of belief makes it easy for denialists to attract the attention of news organisations, but hard for them to balance their ideas against those of the majority. This can lead to undue publicity for views supported by no factual information at all."

Indeed, that is why the "majority" (climate alarmists, to a man or woman or whatever they claim to be) receive "undue publicity".

Nothing more to be said really....

[Anonymous Coward]

Remind us again, Terence

just how many years of his life Nigel Lawson devoted to mastering a scientific discipline and attempting to make a worthwhile contribution to it?

[Terence McCarthy]

Remind Me Again, Anonymous Coward

Where, when did I mention or quote Nigel Lawson?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that be the Nigel Lawson...

...who is a an example of a denialist attracting the attention of news organisations, despite his utter lack of relevant expertise? Like you mentioned in your very OWN post? I hope you are not getting as senile as he appears to be!

[Matt Bryant]

I'm a non-stupid "denier".

Whenever you read the posts by the fanatical AGW posters, you get several messages repeated:

1. "The science is on my side." - The science isn't on your side, in fact there are more and more scientists questioning the AGW model and the industry that has built up to milk it. It was scientists that debunked the Mann hockey-stick graph. It is scientists asking questions about recent cooling. At best you could say "some scientists, possibly a majority but a shrinking one, are in general supporting the idea of global climate change, though not necessarily agreeing that man is the cause."

2. "It was proven over ten years ago." - It was not proven over ten years ago, all that happened was the Dole-backed ecowagon started to roll around about then. It has taken time for other scientist to review the data and raise objections to some of the techniques and selective results used by the AGW crowd. Nothing has been proven either way.

3. "You are stupid if you don't belief." - Actually, in educational terms, I'm in the top 5% of the UK population. Worldwide, that probably means top 1%. Not that I put too great a stock in pieces of paper as a mark of cleverness, as I know plenty of people that are cleverer than me and some of them left school without formal qualifications. But no, I'm not stupid, and I don't unquestioningly accept the idea of AGW.

4. "You are a creationist and/or religeous fanatic if you don't accept AGW." - Nope, I'm more militant aethiest in that I take glee in poking holes in peoples' misplaced faith, be it religeous or quasi-scientific.

5. "You must be paid to deny by the oil/gas industry." - Damn, I must have missed my cheque, as no-one is paying me to point out your blind belief is foolish at best, if not the staggerring stupidity that you accuse deniers of. Debate is healthy and should be encouraged.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm a non-stupid "denier". "

Thank you. As a Catholic I accept that you are a "militant aethiest" as we are both believers. As for the rest of your post, I can only (forgive me!) say "Amen".

We are not the stupid. They are, and because there are many more "stupids" than capable, clever and educated people they seem to believe that majority stupidity is the "right" answer.

We will not get far when the eco-terrorist Gore is preaching to his converted......

[nyelvmark]

I'm not stupid, either.

>> We are not the stupid. They are, and because there are many more "stupids" than capable, clever and educated people they seem to believe that majority stupidity is the "right" answer.

How do I join this religion that you and the moderator belong to?

[Anonymous Coward]

@Jason 7

"We need to eliminate around 3 billion humans from the face of the earth.

Think about it. Its a far easier option than getting nearly 7 billion to change their minds and lifestyles." - The village idiot (aka Jason 7)

You volunteer to go against the wall first then - put your money where your neo-Malthusian mouth is.

In any case your point is asinine as changing hearts and minds is what social engineers have been doing for at least 2 centuries. It certainly seems to have worked on you anyway since you are spouting garbage about overpopulation which was originally dreamed up in the 18th century by Thomas Malthus.

Would you like a blindfold? The bullet is bio-degradable and your body will be given back to mother gia when we bury it in a shallow pit with the rest.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anonymous Coward" Agrees With Jason 7

"Would you like a blindfold? The bullet is bio-degradable and your body will be given back to mother gia when we bury it in a shallow pit with the rest."

So, even in your sad little way, and your pathetic claim to a part of "we", you support the elimination of the unworthy of life!

However, your definition of that term and mine may be different.

Google is clearly your friend, but friends don't know everything- especially when a little learning is a dangerous thing. Perhaps, unlike the world's population, a little more may be good for you in particular?

[jason 7]

Well then....

lets just sit back and watch things develop over the next 40 years as two billion more folks (read consumers) come into the world all wanting the same as we have from an ever dwindling pool of resources.

Then we'll see who had the right idea. It's not going to get better is it?

Or are people expecting that if we just "give it time" we'll somehow end up in a wonderful StarTrek TNG type world where everyone is housed and fed and wants for nothing?

Sorry but thats fiction. The likely scenario is a major war as corporations and superpowers start cutting up and cutting off valuable resources. Its happening already if you havent noticed. Maybe that will sort out the 3 billion. If so I'll take my chances with the rest.

Ok I can take a bullet but on the flip side are you prepared to cut back your lifestyle by 75% so everyone else can have a share?

No? Didnt think so, so what are we going to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank You For Your Living From My Taxes

"Ok I can take a bullet but on the flip side are you prepared to cut back your lifestyle by 75% so everyone else can have a share?"

I just love it- the wonderful illogical jumps in the narrative, the reference to sub-cultural icons, the amusing assumptions, and the non-real, "what if" statements, but I really feel that a fact based logical argument would be more intellectually stimulating and ultimately more satisfactory than this drivel.

No, I am not going to give up any more than I already do to the incompetent, the indigent, the idle loafers, the druggies and the rest who already live at my expense.. If you are one of them, as your rant indicates, then are you prepared to give up 75% of the tax-payer funded allowances you already get?

No, I thought not.

But, please, keep posting for my amusement! Thank you.

[jason 7]

Seems I'm not the only one.....

that could be accused of making wild assumptions.

[Josh 15]

It's getting quite sinister now...

...To the point when a public broadcasting corporation has clearly taken a side (impartiality be damned) and will relentlessly push it's agenda, whilst doing it's level-best to silence or at the very least disadvantage any critics of the dominant narrative regardless of the lack of scientifically verifiable proof to back up it's stance. Even the IPCC, bless 'em, don't ever claim, to the best of my knowledge, to have proven the case for AGW. The BBC's partisan behaviour in the so-called climate debate is nothing short of scandalous.

The Blatantly Biased Corporation - living up to it's name.

Thanks to El Reg for continuing to highlight this sorry state of affairs in our state broadcaster.

[nyelvmark]

IPCC

>> Even the IPCC, bless 'em, don't ever claim, to the best of my knowledge, to have proven the case for AGW.

I think you might be right - I find no mention of it in any of Enid Blyton's works.

[Dan Paul]

@Mike Richards - "I think" is the problem, no one really knows for sure

FTR I am quite old enough to remember the phrase "Question Authority".

CO2 is NOT the only "greenhouse" gas!

Also, exactly whose scale physically measured those Giga Tons? Were you there to check the calibration or methodology?

Methane, SOx, NOx, Organics and suspended or aerosolized particles are all FAR more effective at trapping heat than CO2 is.

This is why volcanoes have an immense (but completely disregarded by MMGW cultists) effect on climate. The effect of dust is twofold as it can filter incoming solar radiation and reflect outgoing ground radiation. The extremely small size of these particles allows them to stay suspended for years. The current South American volcanic dust now covers the entire southern hemisphere, and you cannot tell me that has little to no effect. Krakatoa was only one, albeit large eruption that affected weather for decades. What about the cumulative effect????

CO2 on the other hand, is created by many more sources than just man and no one will honestly discuss exactly how the worldwide natural CO2 respiration cycles operate.

Next, historical CO2 data derived from bubbles in ice cores doesn't have the best pedigree IMHO. Too much can happen to the source and the samples (concentration, chemical reaction, organic production) and it appears that "MMGW scientists" only pick the data points they want to report.

Last, the historical CO2/Temperature data covers such a minute period of time (relative to the age of Earth) that it is statistically insignificant and you cannot extrapolate and project from an insignificant sample.

Meteorologists can't even predict the weather with any absolute certainty, that much is undeniable.

It is a FACT that many of these so called "scientists" fudged at least SOME of the data and I can never believe their reports again.

I don't take things on "blind faith" and no intelligent person ever should.

In this discussion, there are NO absolutes, only theory, hypothesis and lies.

I trust things even less when they have been politicized and then monetized, specifically "Carbon Credit Trading" and it's effect on my wallet.

[Max_Normal]

So long and thanks for all the CO2

Wow, i thought these were some of the most intelligent fora on the web, what a mistake. I'll stick to the scientific ones where i belong rather than the IT based ones in the future I think. BTW I can fix and program my own computer thanks, it's easy, so no worries. Bye.

[Anteaus]

Time-honoured principle..

Whatever happened to the principle that once a scientist had been caught-out massaging figures, no-one ever listened to them again?

While that might sound harsh, the principle is/was that since it is often difficult to detect falsification by specialists working in fields which only they fully understand, the punishment for dishonesty had to be severe enough to ensure that no respectable scientist engaged in it. Otherwise, no data could ever be trusted and the whole of scientific research would fall into disrepute.

The UEA had clearly been 'adjusting' data to make their argument look more convincing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely

Though in Climate 'Science' the rules are adjusted to suit the desired outcome.

[Lonesome Twin]

Umm... consensus?

If this humungous comments trail shows, nothing else, it shows that there is no practical consenus. If we can agree amongst ourselves that Reg readers are not the stupidest cross-section of society you'll find, then surely the merits of the Pro debate would be self-evident, and accepted as The Truth by all these right-thinking analysts.

Because it's the Pro debate that counts, the side of the argument which is the mannequin upon which the tawdry rags of Social Change are being hung. We are being told to change our behaviour, our outlook and our rubbish collections on the strength of a theory which has been raised to the level of religion so as to avoid unwanted examination. To deny is to be heretic, hand me that rock. So I may lob it at Snail Man up there.

[Pete 2]

What we CAN agree on

ISTM what we have here is a room containing a group of men and women who don't realise they are blind, and possibly an elephant - or maybe it's a ravenous tiger - or maybe it's a cute little wabbit. Nobody is sure.

Everybody seems to be interpreting the situation according to what they, personally, want to believe.