Monday
Dec142009
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Scientists say "trust us"
Dec 14, 2009 Climate: CRU Climate: Hulme Climate: Jones The Met Office's hastily assembled list of scientists speaking out in favour of the alleged consensus has been something of a damp squib. I mean, lots of people with a vested interest in the continuation of the global warming crisis think that the global warming crisis is real and important?
Big deal.
Here's an interesting thing though - people who didn't sign it:
- Phil Jones
- Keith Briffa
- Bob Watson
- Andrew Watson
- Mike Hulme
- Tim Osborn
Some people might say that it's remarkable that some of the most prominent climatologists in the country failed to sign a statement of confidence in climatology.
Or perhaps they know something that the rest of us merely suspect.
Then again, maybe they were busy on other things.
Reader Comments (29)
What about Michael Mann?
Oh, right.. Only English Universities..
Great spot - and I notice that a lot of other UEA peeps did. Great show of solidarity - not.
Petition here - spread the word:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/
Copenhagen farce has collapsed - Africa walks out
http://toryardvaark.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/climategate-copenhagen-is-heading-for-collapse/
Climategate has destroyed the lie
I wouldn't put too much weight into any such list of the I'm-a-believer-too-variety.
Whan they show hard-core science supporting their claims, which can be read and evaluated by anyone who wants to, then this is the time to do exactly that.
Noone expects the signees of that list to have done what these guys have worked hard to prevent anybody else from doing ..
The Met Office trawls round the academic world saying 'Sign this or chuck any future grant application straight in the round file' and then wonder why no-one takes any notice of it.
[snip]
Perhaps somebody thought it best not to include the rotten apples int he barrel.
Says a lot of what needs to be understood in less than a minute. Props to docattheautopsy and Watts up with that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI&feature=player_embedded
Btw shouldn't that Met Office list be named "List of British scientists who don't want to lose their funding"?
Since they don't want anyone to look at their data or their methods, all they have left to show us is their diplomas.
Yer Grace:
I find Spartan's comment above exceedingly offensive. Anti-semitism has no place in this debate.
Why does that remind me of this:
100 Authors Against Einstein
Scientists produce lists of other scientists who agree with them primarily when their evidence sucks too much to stand on its own accord.
Robert
Noted and dealt with.
I just clicked and googled one name at random and lo and behold, "studying calcified seaweeds (NERC funded)" and "2003-2008 Royal Society Research Fellow".
Obviously someone to be trusted!
My daughter just finished her science project on music's effect on plants and didn't fudge the data at all! It was a great learning lesson as I showed her example after example of "adjustments" in the AGW data. Despite her school's left-leaning agenda, at least she listened to me. Which is more than you can say about any of those who sign that document.
Look who is front and centre at the top:-
Sir John Houghton listed under "John Ray Initiatve".
The John Ray Initiative (JRI) is an educational charity with a vision to bring together scientific and Christian understandings of the environment in a way that can be widely communicated and lead to effective action. It was formed in 1997 in recognition of the urgent need to respond to the global environmental crisis and the challenges of sustainable development and environmental stewardship.
Why would such an eminent warmonger hide away in a low level warmist promoting outfit (had you ever heard about it?) like this?
Here are some of his previous high level warmist promoting outfits:-
"Honorary Scientist of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the Meteorological Office"
"Chairman or Co-Chairman, Scientific Assessment Working Group, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1988-2002); "
"Director General (later Chief Executive), UK Meteorological Office (1983-91)"
Could this be someone putting himself at a distance from the Climategate storm?
Ach, not a big deal.
I would at least give the Met Office the credit for not getting their signatures: everyone knows that these guys are in the dock, so no point having their names at the bottom.
Let's stick to the stuff that's important.
December 14, 2009 | The Pedant-General
I would at least give the Met Office the credit for not getting their signatures: everyone knows that these guys are in the dock, so no point having their names at the bottom.
Let's stick to the stuff that's important.
=======================
Possibly you might need to demote yourself to "Pedant-Private".
If you look under "Met Office" you will find 204 signatures + 2 "retiured".
I now understand why billions of dollars have been spent on AGW research. The gravy-train must take 8 hours or more to pass through a crossing!
The motto of the Royal Society is "nullius in verba", which is normally translated as "take no-one at their word".
This excludes any consensus from the scientific world. See Galleio, Brno...
Unfortunately, the real traitors to science are presenttly to be found within the scientific establishment.
"Es was immer so".
Clive Crook gets a few agnostic words into the FT.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cc90fb80-e817-11de-8a02-00144feab49a.html
For me the interesting aspect is how weak and deceptive the declaration is.
Sure they are confident in "the observational evidence for global warming", but what global warming? Everyone agrees it has warmed a bit since 1975 (maybe a third or a half a degree), but then it hasn't warmed any more since 1998.
Then the only apparently significant statement: they are confident in "the scientific basis for concluding that it [global warming] is primarily due to human activities". But what does that mean exactly? Do they actually conclude thus themselves or just believe there is a scientific basis for such a conclusion? And what are human activities - GHG emissions, aerosols, land use changes, all three or what? And how much is primarily, when you are only talking about half a degree to start with?
Then some palaver about what upright citizens scientists are and a couple similarly slithery statements from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Why don't they just say: We believe that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases have caused at least X (tenths of a degree) of warming since 1950, and will cause at least Y degrees more warming by 2050?
Because if the figures were anything substantial, half of them wouldn't sign. And to get them to sign you would have to put in figures like 0.3 degrees for both X and Y and people could see this was a crock of [expletive deleted].
[Sorry posted this first on "Vested Interests" in error.]
I would be more interested in the Met Office listing a few dozen scientific papers that "prove" AGW, rather than a list of names. We have already learned not to trust the "names", and we could examine the papers they rely on. In contrast, the group of over 31,000 scientists at the Petition Project, including over 9,000 PhDs, who reject the evidence for AGW, provide a scientific paper with over 100 peer reviewed articles referenced, which thus lend themselves to being examined for validity.
It is amusing that they support the very words of the IPCC report, since that is the report that has now been most convincingly proven to be a scam.
Handcuffs maybe?
Roughly 2,000 scientists; what, at a conservative $100,000 - $150,000 each?
$200 - $300,000,000 of salary, crying "Please don't touch mine; I'm still carrying a mortgage."
I know, and have worked with many of the people on that list and, of the ones that I know, 4 work in "met" and their particular study areas are not directly concerned with global warming.
Probably the least qualified to be called a "scientist" on that list is the retired chief engineer of one of NERC's ships. He has been responsible for a lot of carbon emissions, though.
Another interesting aspect of the list is the names that are missing. This has obviously been across the desk of everyone in every NERC institute, as well as the other well known UK establishments, and under the nose of some very distinguished scientists....who haven't signed. Maybe they are in Copenhagen and missed it?