Climate Cat out of the Bag? Potentially dynamite revelations

[Westy Pre-Lit]

deeps said:

Smith & Jones haha.

BBC1's The One Show at 7pm had Delia Smith as a guest. They were disussing the Cumbrian floods, and Delia said she's taking it all very seriously now, wearing extra clothes and turning the heating down.

There's nothing worse than watching gullible celebs preaching Man Made-up Global Warming.

So far I think they have mentioned Climate Change everyday this week. Something tells me they have been told to go for it as much as possible atm. Shame they haven't mentioned the emails they they so obviously know about.

When Delia mentioned turning heating down I clicked mine up a notch to compensate. Let her get cold, stupid cow.

Edited by Westy Pre-Lit on Thursday 26th November 21:26

[mondeoman]

Tangent Police said:

I would be interested in hearing about threads similar to this which are based in other countries. Particularly the US, if you can find any, link away.

fill yer boots!

Oh, and this site has lots of stuff on the sun too - quite in-depth technically, but worth a read.

[Project 644]

Sorry for the low brow link, but the BBC are still trying to push the whole carbon neutral BS to the plebs who listen to Radio 1.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ny7d3

[mybrainhurts]

Project 644 said:

Sorry for the low brow link, but the BBC are still trying to push the whole carbon neutral BS to the plebs who listen to Radio 1.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ny7d3

Beeb said:

Huw On His Carbon Neutral Record-Playing Bike

Someone tell Huw he exhales CO2...

[turbobloke]

The Excession said:

chris watton said:

"Climategate: this is our Berlin Wall moment!"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...

"I’ve just had a great, very sympathetic interview about Climategate on LBC radio (London’s main commercial news and talk station) with Petrie Hosken. She told me she has been simply inundated with callers, all of them utterly unconvinced that human influence has made any significant on so-called “Global Warming”. She was desperate to get a few balancing calls from people who do believe in AGW but just couldn’t find any.

Can you imagine this happening a year ago? Or even a month ago? Until Climategate, we “Sceptics” were considered freaks – almost as bad as Holocaust deniers – beyond the pale of reasonable balanced discussion. Suddenly we’re the norm. Climategate has finally given us the chance to express openly what many of us secretly openlyfeltknew and were discussing all along:

EFA

Quite right too.

[Oakey]

Guys, AGW is back on.

The BBC have resolved the issue so no need to doubt the science anymore:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8381317.stm

[Tangent Police]

Oakey said:

Guys, AGW is back on.

The BBC have resolved the issue so no need to doubt the science anymore:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8381317.stm

Vigilantes with pitchforks required I think.

This idiocy is totally and utterly a million miles from where it should be.

[mybrainhurts]

Oh, god...

[toppstuff]

Anyone here able to give a brief synopsis of where these revelations actually sit in the big scheme of things at present?

I gather that the BBC et al are largely running around with their fingers in their ears, while the US and Australia is breaking out in a fit of debate, largely led by the usual right wing suspects which is to be expected because I am sure they cannot believe their luck..

But what happens next?

Can we really expect an investigation?

Will there be formal investigations over FOI abuses?

Or will it just fizzle away and the two camps will revert to type, lobbing grenades at each other while the status quo remains?

[DieselGriff]

FFS That's embarrassing, it really is.

[JohnnyPanic]

Oakey said:

Guys, AGW is back on.

The BBC have resolved the issue so no need to doubt the science anymore:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8381317.stm

Michael Mann ... now where've I heard that name before..?

[Tangent Police]

Once again, the BBC show contempt for the populace and attempt to manipulate them via the "party line".

Heads need to roll now. The BBC's bias is quickly becoming a very significant issue itself.

Putting a slant on things is all well and good. I can't explain this particular slant, as it appears to be in more than 4 dimensions.

[Oakey]

JohnnyPanic said:

Oakey said:

Guys, AGW is back on.

The BBC have resolved the issue so no need to doubt the science anymore:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8381317.stm

Michael Mann ... now where've I heard that name before..?

It's fantastic they've managed to resolve this issue that's been bothering them so long.

I mean, yes it's 'convenient' that they should discover the answer to this issue a week after their entire argument has been revealed to be flawed and their credibility has been brought to question, but let's not be skeptical, right?

[deeps]

mondeoman said:

Tangent Police said:

I would be interested in hearing about threads similar to this which are based in other countries. Particularly the US, if you can find any, link away.

fill yer boots!

Oh, and this site has lots of stuff on the sun too - quite in-depth technically, but worth a read.

This guy is a regular poster on that forum, sounds like a science bod possibly working at the Met office Exeter, he fully supports Jones...

Steve said:

Joined: Sept 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,251
Location: Devon, UK
Re: Breaking news: CRU server hacked
« Result #32 on Nov 21, 2009, 10:15am »

---

I'm not that bothered about whether scientists sought to evade intrusive FOIs or Russian tax (I'm sure everyone here pays every cent due, and follows all the laws of the land to the fullest extent). I'm interested in knowing if the science is moving in the right direction.

Reading the emails, what comes across to me is that:

1. The individual scientists think they are going about the science in the right way.
2. There is a lot of disagreement and discussion over quite controversial issues.
3. The scientists genuinely think that the sceptic science is ropey - and in the case of Douglass, either beyond incompetent or potentially as fraudulent as that S Korean gene scientist.

We already knew that a lot of climate scientists viewed various sceptics as dishonest and disingenuous denialists who are prepared to risk the planet to make a name for themselves or for a few bucks from oil and industry, and we already knew that they considered FOI requests to be an unjustified interruption on their time.

The bad case scenario would have been that their private reactions suggested that there were real major flaws in the conduct of the science *which would have major impacts on results*.

But none of the examples that have come out bear this out to me. Even the out of context statement about it being terrible that we can't explain current lack of warming is already in the public domain with various publications referring to it.

So it's not pretty to see, but I don't yet see anything substantive enough to impact on the actual science - there are no examples of duck houses, moat cleaning, house flipping and wisteria chopping.

Then, I've been spending my time reading the emails, and not seeing what other people have found. So I'll come back to this if anything more interesting crops up.

[JohnnyPanic]

Hopefully, soon we'll be able to have windfarms anywhere, that'll solve the impending energy crisis. Who cares if they're noisy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8379970.stm

[Westy Pre-Lit]

Think about it, the BBC etc etc has been ramming this crap down peoples throats for ages.

By totally ignoring it atm they are basically saying they are st scared of it. Probably because they know all the crap will tumble around their feet.

By trying to cover it up proves you can't believe a word they say anymore as they may or may not be telling you the whole truth.

Shame on them!

Hopefully somebody on question time will ask about it but I'll be surprised if it's aired.

Edited by Westy Pre-Lit on Thursday 26th November 22:31

[Hedders]

I am starting to think of the bbc as those four guys playing violins on the deck of the titanic and all the other passngers are the rest of the world

[Dogsey]

Oakey said:

Guys, AGW is back on.

The BBC have resolved the issue so no need to doubt the science anymore:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8381317.stm

Isn't this just old news reheated?

Also:

Mann said:

"But, he added, that the Earth's response to greenhouse-gas-induced global warming might be more complex than "natural" warming."

Or equally - or indeed more likely, given that the Earth has always solved the problem no matter what size ...

Mann could have said:

"But, he added, that the Earth's response to greenhouse-gas-induced global warming might not be more complex than "natural" warming."

[Simpo Two]

Has anyone suggested that the BBC rename the 'Six O'Clock News' the 'Six O'Clock Climate Change'? They seem to do little else - apart from the occasional enemy-proapganda feature about British troops duffing up Iraqis.

[Mr Whippy]

Dogsey said:

Mann said:

"But, he added, that the Earth's response to greenhouse-gas-induced global warming might be more complex than "natural" warming."

Mann could have said:

"But, he added, that the Earth's response to greenhouse-gas-induced global warming might not be more complex than "natural" warming."

I had a rant at work today about this on a news article. Flooding in Cumbria on Bbc website.
A quote was worded in the negative, but the word could and might could flip and say the exact opposite.
It's just propoganda speak. Insidious, and we are forced to pay for it!

It seems no matter what happens now that isn't perfect ideal weather, it's climate change and that is made more changey because of co2... I'm surprised so many "scientists" put their name to this any more. Ah yes, money!