Climate Cat out of the Bag? Potentially dynamite revelations

[sidewayz]

G_T said:

mondeoman said:

G_T said:

s.m.h. said:

No-one has said exactly how much data is shared between the contributors to the IPCC.
I read somewhere the CRU were the largest and most influential of them all.
If they are found, as seems, to have been falsifying data for who-evers benefit, then all the data must be questioned.
Also the point of the same groups of people making up the peer review board, passing whatever they wanted as fact and ejecting those whose opinions did not suit.
The BBC may not see it as newsworthy, but 8million plus on Google search would indicate there's another reason for their lack of interest.
I think the emails won't be the most damning part. Once the data has been thoroughly examined, I think there will be some major problems. This as I understand, may take months , with Copenhagen in a few weeks I can't see that anyone without a vested interest in the whole carbon trading BS would be wanting to sign anything.

I've got the report in front of me and the list of contributing authors is a lot more diverse than that;

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/a...

Granted that doesn't show the weight of individual contributions but if you cast your eye over the metodology you'll also see very little signs of a heavy reliance on their data.

oops

Observations:
Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Kevin E. Trenberth (USA), Philip D. Jones (UK)

and who are these two exactly - ahh yes, now I remember!

I'm not disputing their involvement (or even poor data).

The claim here is that by extension their poor data renders the whole document (and subsequently MMGW) to be false. I am simply asking you to show me where this is the case as it's not uncommon for literature reviews to rely on suspect references (although obviously they shouldn't!).

Sorry mate but you got that arse about face. The claim was made that the wonky data and broken model proved MMGW, and it doesn't.

That isn't denying MMGW,It's denying the model proved it. That isn't being in any camp,it's pointing out the bleedin obvious

honestly, the strop I get into on a Friday after a long week

: 0

[otolith]

I don't think the BBC needs to cherry-pick the QT audience, it is self-selecting.

[jshell]

otolith said:

I don't think the BBC needs to cherry-pick the QT audience, it is self-selecting.

Well they de-selected me!

[Busa_Rush]

don4l said:

These results strongly suggest that the studio audience were not a typical representative of the public at large. Coming so soon after the Nick Griffin farce, I can only conclude that audience manipulation is commonplace at the BBC.

Of course it is. The BBC make 'funny' TV programs, they are not a serious source of information any more. Think Eastenders and you've got the BBC !

[B Oeuf]

don4l said:

I was puzzled by the Question Time audience reaction to "Climategate" last night. At least 90% of the audience seemed totally convinced that MMGW is a clear and imminent threat.

Earlier, there was a one hour long phone-in on LBC, where the presenter expressed shock that *all* the callers were "sceptics". How could one random selection of the public be so different to another in their views?

A quick analysis of the comments on the BBC's website provides no help.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy...

Of the 156 comments posted between 23:06 last night and 9:56 this morning, 94 were about Climate change. This is 60.2%. This is odd, given that the BBC had not thought the issue important enough to allow a question on the issue.

Of these 94 comments, 59 (62.8%) did not believe in MMGW, 7 (4.3%) did not express an opinion, and 28 (29.8%) suggested that Climate Change is real or that something must be done about it.

These results strongly suggest that the studio audience were not a typical representative of the public at large. Coming so soon after the Nick Griffin farce, I can only conclude that audience manipulation is commonplace at the BBC.

Richard Dimbleby must be turning in his grave.

I no longer see that the BBC is in any shape or form "impartial", and sadly think that we can no longer afford a state broadcaster.

The raw dataset that I used in this research is available at the link posted above.

Don
--

interesting post Don, you turned from a mildly bemused BBC customer noticing an irregularity into a full on tin foil hat wearing, skeptical, denierist, BBC hating hacker fan


welcome to a rapidly growing club

[Halb]

B Oeuf said:

don4l said:

I was puzzled by the Question Time audience reaction to "Climategate" last night. At least 90% of the audience seemed totally convinced that MMGW is a clear and imminent threat.

Earlier, there was a one hour long phone-in on LBC, where the presenter expressed shock that *all* the callers were "sceptics". How could one random selection of the public be so different to another in their views?

A quick analysis of the comments on the BBC's website provides no help.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy...

Of the 156 comments posted between 23:06 last night and 9:56 this morning, 94 were about Climate change. This is 60.2%. This is odd, given that the BBC had not thought the issue important enough to allow a question on the issue.

Of these 94 comments, 59 (62.8%) did not believe in MMGW, 7 (4.3%) did not express an opinion, and 28 (29.8%) suggested that Climate Change is real or that something must be done about it.

These results strongly suggest that the studio audience were not a typical representative of the public at large. Coming so soon after the Nick Griffin farce, I can only conclude that audience manipulation is commonplace at the BBC.

Richard Dimbleby must be turning in his grave.

I no longer see that the BBC is in any shape or form "impartial", and sadly think that we can no longer afford a state broadcaster.

The raw dataset that I used in this research is available at the link posted above.

Don
--

interesting post Don, you turned from a mildly bemused BBC customer noticing an irregularity into a full on tin foil hat wearing, skeptical, denierist, BBC hating hacker fan


welcome to a rapidly growing club

I have been on QT. I cannot remember the selection process. Do they ask questions aboot the current topics? If so then I can see how audience members might be selected on their answers, if not. I cannot see how they could do this. Also, there would have to have bene a question related to climate change and human involvement.
The BNP thing, he had a LOndon audience, it was not his core constituency he was speaking to

Edited by Halb on Friday 27th November 14:14

[G_T]

sidewayz said:

Sorry mate but you got that arse about face. The claim was made that the wonky data and broken model proved MMGW, and it doesn't.

That isn't denying MMGW,It's denying the model proved it. That isn't being in any camp,it's pointing out the bleedin obvious

honestly, the strop I get into on a Friday after a long week

Who made that claim? Because I don't think the IPCC did. Not based on a single model anyway.

If the general concensus is that this doesn't disprove MMGW in itself why are people so surprised the BBC aren't interested in the fact that one group of researchers have been discredited?

It's not on, but it's hardly big news is it?

[deeps]

don4l said:

I was puzzled by the Question Time audience reaction to "Climategate" last night. At least 90% of the audience seemed totally convinced that MMGW is a clear and imminent threat.

Earlier, there was a one hour long phone-in on LBC, where the presenter expressed shock that *all* the callers were "sceptics". How could one random selection of the public be so different to another in their views?

A quick analysis of the comments on the BBC's website provides no help.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy...

Of the 156 comments posted between 23:06 last night and 9:56 this morning, 94 were about Climate change. This is 60.2%. This is odd, given that the BBC had not thought the issue important enough to allow a question on the issue.

Of these 94 comments, 59 (62.8%) did not believe in MMGW, 7 (4.3%) did not express an opinion, and 28 (29.8%) suggested that Climate Change is real or that something must be done about it.

These results strongly suggest that the studio audience were not a typical representative of the public at large. Coming so soon after the Nick Griffin farce, I can only conclude that audience manipulation is commonplace at the BBC.

Richard Dimbleby must be turning in his grave.

I no longer see that the BBC is in any shape or form "impartial", and sadly think that we can no longer afford a state broadcaster.

The raw dataset that I used in this research is available at the link posted above.

Don
--

Good work Don, yes the audience was blatently hand picked. As I posted earlier, most people do not believe in 'Man Made-up Global Warming Theory', but 99% of that audience apparently did!

[Project 644]

B Oeuf said:

don4l said:

I was puzzled by the Question Time audience reaction to "Climategate" last night. At least 90% of the audience seemed totally convinced that MMGW is a clear and imminent threat.



Earlier, there was a one hour long phone-in on LBC, where the presenter expressed shock that *all* the callers were "sceptics". How could one random selection of the public be so different to another in their views?



A quick analysis of the comments on the BBC's website provides no help.

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy...



Of the 156 comments posted between 23:06 last night and 9:56 this morning, 94 were about Climate change. This is 60.2%. This is odd, given that the BBC had not thought the issue important enough to allow a question on the issue.



Of these 94 comments, 59 (62.8%) did not believe in MMGW, 7 (4.3%) did not express an opinion, and 28 (29.8%) suggested that Climate Change is real or that something must be done about it.



These results strongly suggest that the studio audience were not a typical representative of the public at large. Coming so soon after the Nick Griffin farce, I can only conclude that audience manipulation is commonplace at the BBC.



Richard Dimbleby must be turning in his grave.



I no longer see that the BBC is in any shape or form "impartial", and sadly think that we can no longer afford a state broadcaster.



The raw dataset that I used in this research is available at the link posted above.



Don

--

interesting post Don, you turned from a mildly bemused BBC customer noticing an irregularity into a full on tin foil hat wearing, skeptical, denierist, BBC hating hacker fan





welcome to a rapidly growing club

Project 644 said:

My complaint to the BBC said:

I am not a conspiracy theorist; I think that this is a little bit too obvious for a conspiracy, especially when the BBC is starting to be mocked by others in the media (who are covering this story).

Maybe Don is starting to feel like me?

[sidewayz]

G_T said:

sidewayz said:

Sorry mate but you got that arse about face. The claim was made that the wonky data and broken model proved MMGW, and it doesn't.

That isn't denying MMGW,It's denying the model proved it. That isn't being in any camp,it's pointing out the bleedin obvious

honestly, the strop I get into on a Friday after a long week

Who made that claim? Because I don't think the IPCC did. Not based on a single model anyway.

If the general concensus is that this doesn't disprove MMGW in itself why are people so surprised the BBC aren't interested in the fact that one group of researchers have been discredited?

It's not on, but it's hardly big news is it?

The East Anglia CRU did often and at length

[Halb]

QT page is leading with Melanie P saying MMGW is a scam.
Global warming is a 'scam' says Melanie Phillips

edit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_tim...
No questions on climate change there. I doubt the audience was handpicked.
The only topics picked are Iraq and Europe.

Edited by Halb on Friday 27th November 14:17

[Einion Yrth]

G_T said:

If the general concensus is that this doesn't disprove MMGW in itself why are people so surprised the BBC aren't interested in the fact that one group of researchers have been discredited?

But it's not just UEA CRU, researchers at Penn. State and Lawrence Livermore National lab. (among others) are implicated by the emails - and now it would seem that a bunch in New Zealand are responsible for cooking figures.

[herewego]

deeps said:

don4l said:

I was puzzled by the Question Time audience reaction to "Climategate" last night. At least 90% of the audience seemed totally convinced that MMGW is a clear and imminent threat.

Earlier, there was a one hour long phone-in on LBC, where the presenter expressed shock that *all* the callers were "sceptics". How could one random selection of the public be so different to another in their views?

A quick analysis of the comments on the BBC's website provides no help.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy...

Of the 156 comments posted between 23:06 last night and 9:56 this morning, 94 were about Climate change. This is 60.2%. This is odd, given that the BBC had not thought the issue important enough to allow a question on the issue.

Of these 94 comments, 59 (62.8%) did not believe in MMGW, 7 (4.3%) did not express an opinion, and 28 (29.8%) suggested that Climate Change is real or that something must be done about it.

These results strongly suggest that the studio audience were not a typical representative of the public at large. Coming so soon after the Nick Griffin farce, I can only conclude that audience manipulation is commonplace at the BBC.

Richard Dimbleby must be turning in his grave.

I no longer see that the BBC is in any shape or form "impartial", and sadly think that we can no longer afford a state broadcaster.

The raw dataset that I used in this research is available at the link posted above.

Don
--

Good work Don, yes the audience was blatently hand picked. As I posted earlier, most people do not believe in 'Man Made-up Global Warming Theory', but 99% of that audience apparently did!

I understand only those who arrived by loser cruiser were allowed in. All those arriving by car were directed to the Top Gear show next door.

[JohnnyPanic]

G_T said:

sidewayz said:

Sorry mate but you got that arse about face. The claim was made that the wonky data and broken model proved MMGW, and it doesn't.

That isn't denying MMGW,It's denying the model proved it. That isn't being in any camp,it's pointing out the bleedin obvious

honestly, the strop I get into on a Friday after a long week

Who made that claim? Because I don't think the IPCC did. Not based on a single model anyway.

If the general concensus is that this doesn't disprove MMGW in itself why are people so surprised the BBC aren't interested in the fact that one group of researchers have been discredited?

It's not on, but it's hardly big news is it?

You recall the discredited hockey stick graph that was lauded around as being proof of global warming yes? Fudged data into suspect models. It's quite a fundamental starting point.

It's a bit like
Prosecution: "His finger prints were on the murder weapon, he is guilty"
Everyone: "oh okay then"
A minority: "Can we see the proof?"
Prosecution: "Oh, well, we've 'lost' the actual murder weapon. But there were finger prints on it. He's got fingers. It was him"
BBC: "Sounds fair enough"

[B Oeuf]

Halb said:

I have been on QT. I cannot remember the selection process. Do they ask questions aboot the current topics? If so then I can see how audience members might be selected on their answers, if not. I cannot see how they could do this. Also, there would have to have bene a question related to climate change and human involvement.
The BNP thing, he had a LOndon audience, it was not his core constituency he was speaking to

Edited by Halb on Friday 27th November 14:14

Maybe the topics to be discussed on your appearance were not so politically crucial Halb?

As for the BNP thing, it was a farce. Apart from the audience being not from NGs core (he should have been aware of that or the BBC were fully aware, who knows but it didn't make for a fair show) the fact he wasn't allowed to respond properly turned the whole thing into a bear pit

[G_T]

JohnnyPanic said:

G_T said:

sidewayz said:

Sorry mate but you got that arse about face. The claim was made that the wonky data and broken model proved MMGW, and it doesn't.

That isn't denying MMGW,It's denying the model proved it. That isn't being in any camp,it's pointing out the bleedin obvious

honestly, the strop I get into on a Friday after a long week

Who made that claim? Because I don't think the IPCC did. Not based on a single model anyway.

If the general concensus is that this doesn't disprove MMGW in itself why are people so surprised the BBC aren't interested in the fact that one group of researchers have been discredited?

It's not on, but it's hardly big news is it?

You recall the discredited hockey stick graph that was lauded around as being proof of global warming yes? Fudged data into suspect models. It's quite a fundamental starting point.

It's a bit like
Prosecution: "His finger prints were on the murder weapon, he is guilty"
Everyone: "oh okay then"
A minority: "Can we see the proof?"
Prosecution: "Oh, well, we've 'lost' the actual murder weapon. But there were finger prints on it. He's got fingers. It was him"
BBC: "Sounds fair enough"

Not disputing that. I'm just saying that hockey stick, even if completely inaccurate, does not put a nail in the coffin of the credibility of the MMGW evidence which seems to be being claimed by a number of people (but not everybody).

[Halb]

B Oeuf said:

Halb said:

I have been on QT. I cannot remember the selection process. Do they ask questions aboot the current topics? If so then I can see how audience members might be selected on their answers, if not. I cannot see how they could do this. Also, there would have to have bene a question related to climate change and human involvement.
The BNP thing, he had a LOndon audience, it was not his core constituency he was speaking to

Edited by Halb on Friday 27th November 14:14

Maybe the topics to be discussed on your appearance were not so politically crucial Halb?

As for the BNP thing, it was a farce. Apart from the audience being not from NGs core (he should have been aware of that or the BBC were fully aware, who knows but it didn't make for a fair show) the fact he wasn't allowed to respond properly turned the whole thing into a bear pit

Well yes it was. I feel the panel shared a lot of that blame.
I have just applied for QT, and I have said I wish to speak aboot climate change and Afghanistan

[Einion Yrth]

G_T said:

JohnnyPanic said:

G_T said:

sidewayz said:

Sorry mate but you got that arse about face. The claim was made that the wonky data and broken model proved MMGW, and it doesn't.

That isn't denying MMGW,It's denying the model proved it. That isn't being in any camp,it's pointing out the bleedin obvious

honestly, the strop I get into on a Friday after a long week

Who made that claim? Because I don't think the IPCC did. Not based on a single model anyway.

If the general concensus is that this doesn't disprove MMGW in itself why are people so surprised the BBC aren't interested in the fact that one group of researchers have been discredited?

It's not on, but it's hardly big news is it?

You recall the discredited hockey stick graph that was lauded around as being proof of global warming yes? Fudged data into suspect models. It's quite a fundamental starting point.

It's a bit like
Prosecution: "His finger prints were on the murder weapon, he is guilty"
Everyone: "oh okay then"
A minority: "Can we see the proof?"
Prosecution: "Oh, well, we've 'lost' the actual murder weapon. But there were finger prints on it. He's got fingers. It was him"
BBC: "Sounds fair enough"

Not disputing that. I'm just saying that hockey stick, even if completely inaccurate, does not put a nail in the coffin of the credibility of the MMGW evidence which seems to be being claimed by a number of people (but not everybody).

Actually one might argue that it does put a nail in the coffin, perhaps not the final nail, but certainly a nail.

[JohnnyPanic]

G_T said:

Not disputing that. I'm just saying that hockey stick, even if completely inaccurate, does not put a nail in the coffin of the credibility of the MMGW evidence which seems to be being claimed by a number of people (but not everybody).

I think it shows a willingness to deceive, and the emails show a desire to close down debate, research and differing opinions.

Most of us here aren't saying the debate is over. We'd like a debate to start, using science & fact without political agendas and emotive soundbites.

The science is settled? The science has barely started.

[s2art]

G_T said:

JohnnyPanic said:

G_T said:

sidewayz said:

Sorry mate but you got that arse about face. The claim was made that the wonky data and broken model proved MMGW, and it doesn't.

That isn't denying MMGW,It's denying the model proved it. That isn't being in any camp,it's pointing out the bleedin obvious

honestly, the strop I get into on a Friday after a long week

Who made that claim? Because I don't think the IPCC did. Not based on a single model anyway.

If the general concensus is that this doesn't disprove MMGW in itself why are people so surprised the BBC aren't interested in the fact that one group of researchers have been discredited?

It's not on, but it's hardly big news is it?

You recall the discredited hockey stick graph that was lauded around as being proof of global warming yes? Fudged data into suspect models. It's quite a fundamental starting point.

It's a bit like
Prosecution: "His finger prints were on the murder weapon, he is guilty"
Everyone: "oh okay then"
A minority: "Can we see the proof?"
Prosecution: "Oh, well, we've 'lost' the actual murder weapon. But there were finger prints on it. He's got fingers. It was him"
BBC: "Sounds fair enough"

Not disputing that. I'm just saying that hockey stick, even if completely inaccurate, does not put a nail in the coffin of the credibility of the MMGW evidence which seems to be being claimed by a number of people (but not everybody).

Which evidence are you talking about?