Climate Change - the big debate

[BliarOut]

odyssey2200 said:

Complaining directly to the BBC is totally pointless as they will send you on your way with a condescending letter and cover it up internally.


Try these guys

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/

Actually I think it is, the BBC trust is going to be investigated over it's neutrality.

[YAD061]

The Trust are investigating the BBC over it's impartiality

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters/bb...

but since they were supposed to be monitoring the content in the first place.......

[Lost_BMW]

YAD061 said:

The Trust are investigating the BBC over it's impartiality

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters/bb...

but since they were supposed to be monitoring the content in the first place.......

. . and gave them permission to be partial in the 1st instance . .

[Diderot]

Lost_BMW said:

YAD061 said:

The Trust are investigating the BBC over it's impartiality

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters/bb...

but since they were supposed to be monitoring the content in the first place.......

. . and gave them permission to be partial in the 1st instance . .

Precisely. License to be biased. Lovely.

[stevejh]

Apologies if this has already been said but I've just discovered that the majority of BBC complaints are handled for them by Capita. Would that be the same Capita that has won numerous government contracts over the last few years and the Capita who I believe made some rather large contributions to the Labour party coffers a few years back.

I stand to be corrected but if I'm right then I'm even less confident that complaints about the BBC coverage of AGW will be handled even handedly.

[deeps]

b2hbm said:

So I wonder if everyone who has this response went back and said "prove it - show me a list of names with academic qualifications and demonstrate that this list does form the broad majority of CC scientists in the world "?

I'll bet they couldn't.

Yes they should be pushed on that point, it's easy to simply talk the talk. Perhaps some of you guys can send them the letters with scientists names opposing MMGWT that TB has posted earlier, when requesting evidence of the claimed warmist majority.

b2hbm said:

Anybody know how to find out the world total of folks involved in CC research ?

Something similar was mentioned by Jones in one of the email exchanges, something about bigging up the numbers using misrepresentation techniques.

TB, have you got any info on numbers of publicly funded warmist climate scientists?

[turbobloke]

deeps said:

b2hbm said:

So I wonder if everyone who has this response went back and said "prove it - show me a list of names with academic qualifications and demonstrate that this list does form the broad majority of CC scientists in the world "?

I'll bet they couldn't.

Yes they should be pushed on that point, it's easy to simply talk the talk. Perhaps some of you guys can send them the letters with scientists names opposing MMGWT that TB has posted earlier, when requesting evidence of the claimed warmist majority.

b2hbm said:

Anybody know how to find out the world total of folks involved in CC research ?

Something similar was mentioned by Jones in one of the email exchanges, something about bigging up the numbers using misrepresentation techniques.

TB, have you got any info on numbers of publicly funded warmist climate scientists?

From this website, which lists a credible source, there were ~750 scientists working in the field of global climate change in the USA in 2006. Add in closely related fields and the total increases to 13,746 and with non-US members added in the total becomes 19,340

Given the expansion in funding since 2006, the totals will be significantly higher now but 'a few tens of thousands' would probably still describe it even on a global not US scale. Purely 'global climate change' would likely take the total down to a few thousand.


http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-many-climat...
Friday, November 10, 2006
How many climate scientists are there mommy?

.....The answer in the US is 13,746. AGU has a directory of members sorted by primary area of interest the numbers are

1956 Atmospheric
1564 Biogeochemistry
334 Cryosphere
751 Global climate change
4736 Hydrology
2326 Ocean sciences
634 Paleoclimate
2004 Volcanology (you can argue here if you want)

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 16th January 14:20

[Pesty]

The question is how many of those support AGW?

we keep getting told its the overwhelming majority and only a handfull of deniers dispute it.

[turbobloke]

Pesty said:

The question is how many of those support AGW?

we keep getting told its the overwhelming majority and only a handfull of deniers dispute it.

There have been a number of surveys and one is iirc currently underway, it was linked a month or two back from Pielke Sr.'s site.

The question is a reasonable one i.e. to ask what individual viewpoints are, but for somebody whose reputation, salary, career, faculty or institutional grant-funding, and peer relations, all depend on one viewpoint, to then express another, is quite some expectation.

In terms of scientific publications, the surveys by Peiser and Schulter are widely discussed on the web. Peiser found only 13 of 928 abstracts for publications on the database he searched for - using the corrected search terms supplied by Oreskes - explicitly endorse AGW. Schulter updated Peiser's litsearch and from 528 papers only 38 explicitly supported AGW, the largest category was 'neutral' with neither support nor rejection of AGW. Both of these surveys are said to reveal the lack of a true consensus.

[turbobloke]

The Excession said:

Seriously though, you've got to admire the way the push you from pillar to post with 'awaiting a reply' - 'We can't do anything till you get a reply....' It really is beyond being funny any more.

There's another factor the BBC complaints and management teams must be aware of, that resembles the rationale behind local scamera pratnerships moving from local roads to motorway bridges. If scamvans target local roads the majority of people scammed will be local and there will be a concentration of anti-scamerati in one concentrated pool in one geographical location. By moving to the m-way bridge the scammers not only get rich pickings but for the purposes of my analogy their victims are spread far and wide and the opposition is diluted across space so to speak and the chances of any of their victims communicating or collaborating in opposition is remote. In the case of the BBC and complaints, they treat each complaint with the same derisive platitudes because they realise that the complainants may be numerous but they (we) are geographically disparate and the chances of communication leading to a joined-up strategy are remote. However there is the internet and when something so blatant as BBC bias is under consideration there are websites and webpages devoted purely to that topic, and here we are sharing experiences, so perhaps there are grounds for limited optimism.

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 16th January 14:50

[Jasandjules]

Lost_BMW said:

crap from the BBC

I'd be inclined to ask them to prove it.

I'd ask them to show the "majority" of scientists etc.. and I'd be inclined to point to the CRU e-mails which rather plainly show that's a load of rubbish.

Then I'd ask them why a consensus is relevant in science. It is either right or it is wrong, all the scientists of the time disagreed with Darwin when he published the Origin of the Species. Yet they were wrong.

[Steve996]

Steve996 said:

Here's my quickly cobbled together message to my MP...

Dear Robert Smith,

As you can see from my address I am one of your constituents and have in the past voted for you. I have been reviewing a summary of your voting and note that you have been a strong advocate of policy to address man made global warming issues in parliament and indeed I note that you serve on a subcommittee relating to climate change.

With this in mind I would like to know if you have been keeping yourself up to date on the latest insight that we now have on the "science" that underpins the theory that man is adversely impacting the global climate system through burning of fossil fuels.

I strongly advise that you take a short while to click through the link below and read through the analysis of the leaked correspondence between the key players who were charged with creation and presentation of the temperature record database upon which the IPCC policy maker guidance documents are based.

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

I am extremely concerned that I frequently hear politicians and a relatively small, but very vocal, group of climate scientists continually stating that AGW "science is settled". From my own fairly rudimentary reading of available information I had formed the opinion that this was certainly not the case even before the "Climategate" email record surfaced. The insight that can now be gained from reading through and understanding how "unscientific" the group were who masterminded the temperature records only serves to reinforce that there are some very serious policy decisions being based upon analysis that is at least unscientific and flawed and at worst downright manipulated and fraudulent.

On a similar subject there have been some interesting articles recently relating to the business interests of the head of the IPCC. It certainly seems to flag some serious conflict of interest issues

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-...

The impact of the impending stepped reduction in CO2 permits through the EUETS will undoubtedly result in a significant reduction in viable lifespan of many, if not all, North Sea Oil and Gas fields. I have seen data suggesting that as a minimum some fields COP (cessation of production) will be brought forward by several years as a result of the operating cost increases imposed by this. Given that this industry provides employment for the vast majority of the constituents that you represent I would be interested to hear your views on the impact that current AGW CO2 policy will have in this area.

I welcome your response in relation to this very important topic.

Had a response from Robert Smith, has come in paper copy (which I will scan and post asap). From first read certainly not a generic response and comes with quite a few pages of backup in relation to his recent speeches and questions on the subject. Recovery from Laser Eye Surgery so will post when I am able to use the computer (wife is typing this for me)

[LongQ]

It seems the Himalayan glaciers may not be under quite as much imminent threat as previously thought....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...


Oh well, we all make mistakes as the Dalek said climbi....

[Blib]

LongQ said:

It seems the Himalayan glaciers may not be under quite as much imminent threat as previously thought....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...


Oh well, we all make mistakes as the Dalek said climbi....

It's good to see another of the newspapers publish an article questioning and hence undermining this stuff.

What's that now? Mail, Express & Times. Not forgetting the Telegraph's Saintly Deligpole.

[dickymint]

LongQ said:

It seems the Himalayan glaciers may not be under quite as much imminent threat as previously thought....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...


Oh well, we all make mistakes as the Dalek said climbi....

Last paragraph.............

"The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific concensus over climate change. It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely."


Could this be the "Mess Office" trying to salvage some credibility?

[turbobloke]

Guam said:

dickymint said:

LongQ said:

It seems the Himalayan glaciers may not be under quite as much imminent threat as previously thought....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...


Oh well, we all make mistakes as the Dalek said climbi....

Last paragraph.............

"The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific concensus over climate change. It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely."


Could this be the "Mess Office" trying to salvage some credibility?

Well apparently the Beeb is going to sack the met office if todays papers are to be believed, maybe they (met office) have clicked to the fact that their lucrative commercial business is in the toilet!

Greed and the instinct for self preservation are the main motivations in there now (not the science) fear is a wonderful catalyst for change!!

Interesting news!

How long before 'we' can 'sack' the BBC?!

[dickymint]

turbobloke said:

Guam said:

dickymint said:

LongQ said:

It seems the Himalayan glaciers may not be under quite as much imminent threat as previously thought....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...


Oh well, we all make mistakes as the Dalek said climbi....

Last paragraph.............

"The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific concensus over climate change. It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely."


Could this be the "Mess Office" trying to salvage some credibility?

Well apparently the Beeb is going to sack the met office if todays papers are to be believed, maybe they (met office) have clicked to the fact that their lucrative commercial business is in the toilet!

Greed and the instinct for self preservation are the main motivations in there now (not the science) fear is a wonderful catalyst for change!!

Interesting news!

How long before 'we' can 'sack' the BBC?!

If Greg Dyke gets his way we will be paying for them even if we don't have a TV!

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_an...

[turbobloke]

Irony?

[groucho]

LongQ said:

It seems the Himalayan glaciers may not be under quite as much imminent threat as previously thought....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...


Oh well, we all make mistakes as the Dalek said climbi....

Reading the comments; not one in support of MMGW, and they still spout this crap. Will they still go on about it when the only support they have is little Jimmy (7) down Acacia Avenue?

[nelly1]

groucho said:

LongQ said:

It seems the Himalayan glaciers may not be under quite as much imminent threat as previously thought....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...


Oh well, we all make mistakes as the Dalek said climbi....

Reading the comments; not one in support of MMGW, and they still spout this crap. Will they still go on about it when the only support they have is little Jimmy (7) down Acacia Avenue?

Still a fair way to go I'm afraid...