Saturday
Dec052009
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Unthreaded
Dec 5, 2009 Climate Some of the comments threads are going way off topic, so I'm setting up an unthreaded post for people who want to point to interesting stories or put forward their own theories.
Reader Comments (472)
Just reading Monbiot's blog I saw his response to a blast from Porritt over solar engergy and feed-in rules, where he asks Porritt "So please Jonathan, a bit of fair-mindedness and objectivity from you". When has Monbiot ever given anyone who questions his beloved AGW that benefit? Total hypochracy.
I imagine George M and Richard Black and all the other journalists have spent the day poring over the Select committee report, ready to give us the proper message in the morning:
[From the select committee web site]
"Embargoed paper and electronic copies of the report will be available at 11.00am on Tuesday 30 March. Volume II, containing the oral and written evidence, will be published on Wednesday 31 March at 11.00am.
The Committee will hold an embargoed press briefing at the Science Media Centre on Tuesday 30 March, time to be confirmed."
The SMC pops it's bonny head up again! Why not a press conference in a Parliamentary committee room?
I don't really see what the system of embargo does for journalism, other than make it very cosy, and easy for the government to spin. If a report is going to be released, then the public should see it no later than any journalist.
NASA will be using the Global Hawk drone for data gathering flights over the Pacific Ocean followed by flights over the Arctic regions. Chris Naftel, the NASA project manager indicates some willingness on NASA’s part to consider outside ideas on the use of this platform for research. See the following quote. I think that it behooves those of us in the skeptics community to consider the options, discuss ideas on the various blogs and make a few well-supported recommendations for experiments or data gathering that will help to move a data driven discussion forward. I will be sending this post to CA, WUWT, Bishop Hill and ChiefIO for consideration.
“NASA Prepares ‘Global Hawk” for Takeoff”
“Another major goal of the early runs will be to figure out just what else is possible with the Global Hawk. "We want to know, 'how do you use this platform for research?'" Naftel said.
The ideas may come from beyond NASA: Dryden will soon have live feeds from the Global Hawk, including high-definition ocean snapshots that "should be really fascinating for the public to see," Naftel added. “
www.livescience.com/technology/global-hawk-airplane-100330.html
Your tax money at work. The 'partners' supporting the declaration are interesting, since yet again we have our tax money being given to people to dream up new ways to restrict us and to spend yet more of our tax money.
http://www.berkhamstedpeople.co.uk/news/Police-Berkhamsted-climate-change-pledge/article-1959013-detail/article.html
I looked to see what RealClimate had to say about the Parliamentary CRU Enquiry. It offered a summary at DESMOGBLOG.com. I noticed in the small print there, that it was provided by www.energyboom.com. WOW what a revelation! Money leaking out of every picture. And they think that the sceptics are backed by Big Oil?!
Greenpeace linking mobile tech/cloud computing to global warming. I hate to break it to them...
Greenpeace article.
Email reply today from the Russell panel in response to my request as to when the evidence and submissions will be published on their web site.
Many thanks for your email to the independent Climate Change Email Review. All emails will be read and eventually published by the Review.
If relevant to the Review remit, your email will be considered as a submission by the Review team.
Where possible we will try to respond to questions raised, though the volume of emails received means that this may take time.
With best wishes
The independent Climate Change Email Review team
Bishop
From the judgement in the Simon Singh appeal:
" More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models – not larger awards of damages – mark the path towards superior understanding of the world around us."
I would have prefered 'more open discussion', but not bad.
http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2010/04/01/the-simon-singh-appeal-judgement-in-full/
More on the Singh appeal, which is great news for research and journalism-
"Judge Easterbrook had declared that those claiming they had been libelled 'cannot, by simply filing suit and crying 'character assassination!', silence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs' interests.
'Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models - not larger awards of damages - mark the path towards superior understanding of the world around us.'"
Which potentially helps head off any litigation from climate scientists who conceal their research and then cry they're being misrepresented, attacked and potentially libelled in the press.
Bishop
Here in France, Claude Allegre's recent book is making waves. 400 climatologists (that many?) have written to the Minister of Research asking her to express her confidence in their work. Sources close to the Minister say she has replied favourably and will ask the Academy of Science to set up a 'calm debate' on the science.
If it comes off the debate wil be anything but calm, M. Allegre is an old street fighter.
http://lci.tf1.fr/science/environnement/2010-04/climat-la-fronde-de-400-chercheurs-contre-allegre-5794849.html
(Mme. Dreadnought has gone shopping and says she will try and find me a copy.)
michel wrote on keep on gatekeeping:
Judging by the stream of abuse anything not sufficiently 'sceptic' tends to receive, I doubt that. Yourself being one of several exceptions, but it's not enough. So if it does, it will do so without me, and no doubt unimpeded by the evidence that it isn't UHI.
Because this is the last time I intend to comment here. This episode shows, again, that the moderation here - albeit light - is partisan and stacked against those who dissent. People will no doubt cheer and claim the problem lies with me, yet compared to the responses subsequent to my first comment, mine is pretty much the only comment on topic (I even quoted the article). The remainder are mostly about me (yours and some others excluded). Many of them also contain unwarranted personal abuse, and/or ridiculous demands that I address something such as Mann's paper which is both irrelevant and not on topic. Of course, Bishop Hill isn't responsible for the behaviour of his friends, but neither am I.
I fully understand Bishop Hill's frustration in trying to keep comment threads on topic and not shouting matches. I would like to comply with Bishop's comment policy requests and have so far bent over backwards to do so. However, those requests have by now become unreasonable and applied in such a blatantly partisan fashion, to the extent that anyone who dissents is required to debate with both hands tied behind their back. Remarks on that thread call me 'a flat out liar, as usual' - itself an outrageous lie - and 'the trolliest of trolls' - itself trolling. These remarks aren't acceptable, but they are allowed to stand without any moderation other than 'off-topic', while my on-topic and non-abusive post is the one singled out for challenge. Not good enough.
Since I am effectively not permitted to respond even to personal abuse, lies about me and trolls as I see fit, therefore I don't intend to comment further at all. The only exception is that I reserve the right to reply to any further personal abuse exactly as I please, and in doing so will no longer make any attempt to play by the rules so many 'sceptics' have been permitted to freely ignore. Or I may trackback from my own site, again as I see fit.
The topic of the original thread is how other people keep contrary views out of their forum. The irony is priceless isn't it? Imagine the journal you guys would run. As I wrote in email to the Bishop earlier, if the objective is an echo chamber then he should simply delete all dissenting comments, rather than wait for the loons to make any dissenters leave in disgust (which appears to be the pattern so far). It would save time and keyboards, and it would also be more honest.
Talk amongst yourselves.
April Fool's?
Mr. O'D, if that wasn't the most eloquent version of "Y'all won't let me play with my toys so I'm going home," I've never heard it before. BH has some of the most lax moderation I've seen on a climate website. And the spews of vitriol that I have seen here haven't been anywhere near as bad as I've seen leveled on other sites. Try being on a board with 200 other women. OMG, the catfights you'll see! Crimeney! If being called a liar and a troll makes you take your toys and go home, so be it. It's a shame, really, that your skin is so thin. Because really, the supposed "oppression" you are under is quite laughable.
I hope this is an April Fool, Frank. This blog isn't as much of a lion's den as others out there but the Comments sections do tend to be partisan echo-chambers. Props to you for posting here. Hearing only one interpretation of anything as [insert adjective of your choice] as AGW is not only dull, it's a waste of time. I hope you change your mind.
Vinny, not an April Fools. Didn't think of that! But thanks anyway.
And while I'm here: Sarah, you misunderstand - the moderation is very lax, sure, and it is mostly a voluntary code anyhow. Nobody claimed oppression or censorship so stop saying that.
The problem is not that I can't deal with the abuse and the lies - I can easily do so. I'm used to totally unmoderated venues where I have been called far worse. The issue is that I can do that, or I can follow BH's requests, but I can't do both.
I go with the view 'BH's house, his rules' and I consider ignoring them to be the equivalent of going into someone's house and pissing on the furniture. However the demand to stay 'on topic' when someone else is calling you a liar (and for that matter angrily demanding that you go off topic!) is simply unreasonable. At the very least if I am requested not to deal with something like this myself, which I would be happy to, I expect BH to do so.
Also unreasonable is the idea that you can singlehandedly debate one side of complex topics, outnumbered at least 10:1 (but never outgunned :-) - respond to all of that while keeping your posts brief, oh and you must never provoke or belittle any of the anonymous superannuated lunatics who may show up from time to time. Like I said I can't be held responsible for their behaviour. (Indeed I sometimes wonder if they can. ;-)
Frank
Are you clear that I have undertaken to speak to those who have spoken out of turn?
Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, April 1st 2010
Esquire featured hippie-kryptonite Marc Morano, Greenpeace upset the iCrowd and we have a genuine nerd fight between weathermen and climatologists. Pocket protectors at noon, gentlemen.
All this and a hottie of justice. It’s April 1st, but would I joke about that?
http://dailybayonet.com/?p=3010
F O'D,
If you choose to come to a discussion of ideas with nothing more than snarky talking points from the AGW community, and decline to even try to re-think the basis of what you defend sblindly, then feel free to make up all the excuses you wish.
But don't think you are getting anyone to think you have either arrived well gunned or that you have defended the pile of used cow fodder that is the basis of AGW calamatism.
I commend to you, when you are ready to explore how you got trapped into being part of the AGW community, the short book, 'The True Believer', by eric Hoffer.
http://freedomkeys.com/truebeliever.htm
If you want a more historic review, read the classic "Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"
http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/051788433X
this quote describes so well the dilemma of the AGW true believer:
""Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.""
But here is something to ponder in light of climategate- how the true beleivers bounced back so quickly to whitewash, accept lies, and ignore the obviouis scam of AGWpromoters:
"True-believer syndrome is a term coined by M. Lamar Keene in his 1976 book The Psychic Mafia. Keene used the term to refer to people who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged.[2][3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome
I would submit that you, and great deal of other AGW true believers, suffer from exactly that.
You are able to suspend your critical thinking skills and argue on and on and on that your obviously disproven faith is actually justified.
Bishop,
I know you said that you would speak to some people but I have no idea who or about what exactly.
I am not sure that it will do any good. You've already posted various requests but it only takes one or two to ignore them. Probably not everyone has even seen them.
@hunter: Taking shots at someone as they are leaving? Classy.
F O'D,
Actually I don't see them as shots, but challenges for you to actually think.
Coming or going, I think the effort to get a true believer to think outside their self-contained box is worth it.
You have been, in effect, brain washed by a huge cult. The sooner you can break out of it, the better for you.
Again bbc aims to mislead. apologise, misdirect:
MP's message of climate trust:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/the_first_of_the_numerous.html#comments
My response into the comments, I hope it appears:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"the emails date back ten years"
all implying behaviour from ten years ago,
yet they date FROM ten years ago: (a whole body of evidence)
2 months prior to copenhagen, where the great and the powerful, were telling the WORLD, about unprecedented catstrophic global warming.
The highest temperatures since 'records began, etc, rising sea level settled science. Unprecedented rates of warming, etc.
Privately, in the emails, ( 2only 2 months before Copenhagen) they are discussing the fact that it has not warmed for 1o years, they are disagreeing about what is going on, and the uncertainty.
The very scientists at the heart of the IPCC, the scientists that the political circus depends on to promote, catastrophic man made global science is both certain and a DANGER, scientists like Jones, Mann, etc.
They are complaining october 10, 2009 (not ten years ago) about a BBC reporter Paul Hudson, writing an article on this website:
Whatever happened to global warming.
original climategate email: BBC u-turn on climate change (oct 11, 2009)
"You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics' views.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/
BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US."
There were a number of responses from the team:
Trenbeth in reply to Mann (oct 12, 2009)
"Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are
asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two
days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high
the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the
previous records for these days by 10F. "
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate."
Wigley to Trenbeth and the team (oct14:
"At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend
relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove
ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.
Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade."
Kevin to Wigley and team:
"How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!"
Mann agian 14 Oct 2009:
"But this raises the interesting question, is there something going on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models. I'm not sure that thishas been addressed--has it?"
Another response: (showing disagreement, about the settled science)
"I didn't mean to offend you. But what you said was "we can't account
for the lack of warming at the moment". Now you say "we are no where
close to knowing where energy is going". In my eyes these are two
different things -- the second relates to our level of understanding,
and I agree that this is still lacking.
Then of course, Michael Mann's first thought is to get in touch with Richard Black:
Michael Mann wrote:
"extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?"
Then a few months later after Climategate and copenhagen, Roger Harrabin, in a webiste interview with Phil Jones, gets some answers:
Not exactly primetime TV (as all the scare at Copenhagen)
No Statitsical warming for a decade.
It has probably as warm, warmer in the past,
and the rate of warming has been similar in the past (ie not unprecedented)
So what were the politicians screaming about at Copenhage - 50 days to save the planet.
from what, a natural cycle of climate, indistinguishable form previous natural cycles, with no human signature identified in the climate..
Very relevant, very now, with a 45 trillion 'carbon' economy just around the corner.
Again the bbc spins the truth..
the data was freely available.. (is being economical with the truth)
From the available data, in order to reproduce, test audit Jones, et als work. You need to know, what data was used, what subset was used, what adjustemnts, etc,etc.
Without that it is impossible to reproduce/test the results..
That is what was being asked for, the response Richard Black gives above is just like the miriad of excuses used, by CRU and their apologists.
I am ashamed that the BBC (my BBC) is either so ignorant of what occured, or is just too scared to look properly, or to scared to investigate the allegations for themselves..
Maybe it is time for certain member of the environment team to step aside for a while, they may not realise it, but very many people, partly in response to what was described above.
Many peole believe that the BBC has got to close to their sources, and are now part of the climategate scandal and are not just reporting it anymore....
Hi Frank if you're still here
Sorry to read you have decided to contribute no more. Personally I always enjoyed the various discussions we both took part in and which I thought we managed to do in a reasonable and personable manner, no matter our differences of opinion.
I'm sure many of the BH regulars will miss your challenging input, diametrically opposed as it is to most. Often in these discussions you have been our singular and very own sceptic and "denialist" and put in many hours of effort it is clear. Bravo for that, and best of luck. Drew
I ordered you book on Amazon U.S. three weeks ago together with Moser's CRUtape treatise. Crutape has arrived, Hockey Stick hasn't. Just received notice from Amazon that it may be another 30 days and even then they aren't sure. I suppose that this is one of the joys of being an author. It might be useful for you or your UK publisher/agent to ask Amazon US what their US backlog is. I am happy to testify that it is at least one.
Just noticed Pielke Jr's post on the McKitrick issue
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/04/fabrication-or-lie-in-ipcc-ar4-wgi.html
It's pretty hard hitting.
Monseigneur
Greetings from France and more news on the petition against Claude Allegre's book.
- It seems that it was first published on a website with an invitation to sign. However, it was amended before it was sent to the Minister of Research without consulting the signatories (standard IPCC practice?).
- The signatures include a historian.
- Valerie Masson-Delmotte, the organiser, is a serial petitioner. She made a submission to OFCOM over the 'Great Global Warming Swindle'.
Meanwhile, the book has sold 110,000 copies, the media are at long last waking up to the public mood and Nicolas Hulot, self-appointed Environmentalist in Chief, is unavailable for comment. (He is rumoured to be very depressed by the cancellation of the Taxe Carbone and the flop of his film 'Le Syndrome du Titanic').
It's all very interesting but terribly confusing.
The Wikipedia URL for HSI is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion
B***** H***
This is GREENPEACE: (I guess BishopHill is on this guy list)
I am shocked that this is allowed/sanctioned on greenpeace's website
I will highlight the last 4 sentences:
"We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few."
-----------------------------------------------------
"The politicians have failed. Now it's up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It's not working. We need an army of climate outlaws."
The proper channels have failed. It's time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.
If you're one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let's talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.
If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few.
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/03/climate-craziness-of-the-week-greenpeace-posts-threats/#more-18149
Haven’t we laws about terrorism and incitement.
Watch out Bishop!
There's a large green boat sailing up your driveway.
Bishop
Sorry to keep banging on about "L'Affaire Allegre" but it's now getting out into the English language blogosphere. Lubos Motl has picked it up.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/04/claude-allegre-dismisses-useless-and.html
Bishop
Did you notice this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/01/james-lovelock-climate-change-pessimism
"Lovelock's comment that possibly the only solution is to temporarily suspend democracy needs considerable discussion with social scientists and historians."
No it bloody doesn't! It needs fighting tooth and nail.
Ah! Chris Huntingford is a climate change impact modeler.
Bret Stephens article in the WSJ is interesting in light of talking about the panic de jur. The article may be behind a pay wall.
Green terrorism:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/05/us/AP-US-Arson-ELF.html?_r=2
Eco - Loon Campaign ?
Listening to Nicki Campbell's radio phone-in on R5 this morning the question was for the listeners "the election is all about...[fill in the blanks]". One of the first few callers (someone from Manchester) launched straight into climate change, environment, destruction blah blah blah. When pushed by Campbell he admitted he had attended Copenhagen and when asked in what capacity I recall he replied as an activist making a film. Campbell gave him a few minutes to ramble on without interuption - which is most unusual for our resident jockney as he does like the sound of his own voice and is prone to constantly interupt. This guy was determined to get his point across and admitted that he would probably vote "green". Wonder if his radio interlude will be part of his film. I also caught the tail-end of a programme on R4 around lunchtime where some scary eco-fascist was talking about piloting local authority carbon credit schemes, where a carbon pool would be created and local residents could buy credits !! Even more scary was that a map was now available, produced by the government, where, as I understood it, developers could see some monetary value (tax) applied to any area of land regarding carbon emissions from development. I may have got this wrong as I came in at the end, but it was scary stuff if true. There was some balance as a contributor spoke of the AGW/environmental crew being intent on taking us back to the dark ages and ignoring any kind of technological advancement.
Linked to - Eco-Loon Campaign...
I forgot to mention also that our eco-fascist on R4, spoke about the poor being more friendly to the environment i.e. they can't afford a car, they live is small houses and can't afford to heat them properly - he spoke in almost glowing terms about this !! Absolutely staggering - is this the real agenda - keeping us in poverty and being reliant on, and subserviant to, the state ?
Hi Bish.
Whilst engaged in a CAGW debate with a senior Lecturer in Engineering Physics, I was asked weather I agree
"Order of magnitude wise, a warming of 1 Kelvin corresponds to a shift in the radiation balance at the 1% level."
I didn't really understand the statement (no references) and thought it might have been posed to trip me up, so I started ploughing through AR4-wg-1 chap 3. Bottom of page 243 about UHI it states "Many local studies have demonstrated that the microclimate within cities is on average warmer, with a smaller DTR, than if the city were not there. However, the key issue from a climate change standpoint is whether urban-affected temperature records have significantly biased large-scale temporal trends."
Which seemed to waffle away DTR too conveniently. So I started reading on DTR and found this...
"Daytime temperatures are higher than nighttime temperatures. The difference is defined as the diurnal temperature range (DTR). Observations show that in most places the DTR is decreasing in recent years. It is caused by temperatures increasing faster at night than during the day." from http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/dtr.htm
Which seems to blow CAGW out the water for me!
Am I missing something?
Cheers.
Without references, or a better phrased question, I'd say your tame physicist was just saying that large changes in temperature would need (or have) large effects. [Or since a worldwide 1C rise would involve a lot of energy, it would also have a noticeable effect on energy fluxes]. Pretty meaningless statement really without any detail. He was probably being deliberately obfuscatory and trying to impress an audience with meaningless gobbledegook.
With regard to day/night temperatures, the temperature records (certainly here in the UK - see the CET series) show that the rise in average temperature comes largely NOT from an increase in maxima (usually daytime, but not exclusively) but from an increase in minima (usually night time, but not exclusively). In other words, it's not getting warmer, it's getting less cold.
I'm reasonably certain the same effect is seen in global data.
Still no sign of Manns submission to the Russell inquiry, even though many other submissions dated March 1st are up. Why the delay? What's so special about Manns submission that it required so much work to post? We should be told! The public has a right to know! Something should be done! [insert other useful phrase here...]
There must be an ambitious, capable, competent journalist around who could tease out the answer, surely. Roger? Richard?
Cumbrian Lad
No no Mann submission yet, BUT, I was interested to see that Mike Hulme, one of the CRU scientists has directed the review team to a paper 'Silencing science: partisanship and the career of a publication disputing the dangers of secondhand smoke' which he suggests is highly relevant to the issues.
Cheers Cumbrian Lad.
I figured decreasing DTR indicates either more cloud cover, and therefore negative feedback, or higher UHI effect, or both. But it does seem much more important than the IPCC recognises (or fails to recognise) I can't see how Co2 comes into it at all.
Interesting summary of recent events mentioned at Spiegel Online.
Flowers bloom earlier as UK warms
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News
Typical of Richard, no mention whatsoever of the now very-well-known fact that this spring is running several weeks late.
Exactly what is the job of a BBC correspondent if he adds no content or perspective whatsoever to these reports?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8606406.stm
James E. Hansen gets $100.000 award:
The Sophie Prize 2010 is awarded to American climate scientist Dr. James E. Hansen. Hansen has played a key role for the development of our understanding of human-induced climate change. His clear message has met resistance, and he experienced censorship of his scientifically based statements during the Bush-administration.
Dr. Hansen is an outstanding scientist with numerous scientific articles published in high-ranking journals. His conscience, and later his role as a “concerned grandfather”, has committed him to combine his research with political activism based on personal conviction. He receives the award for his clear communication of the threat posed by climate change and for his genuine commitment to future generations.
From http://www.sofieprisen.no/
@steveta_uk
Interesting the Mirror quotes the report I believe and calls it "citizen science". So its OK if your not a scientist if you support AGW, but if a sceptic had conducted such research there would have been hoots of derision and much nashing of teeth from the alamists. Wonder if it was peer reviewed or 'pal reviewed' before publication. Hypochracy and double standards.
steve_ta
Aha! At last, something I can comment upon with authority! The headline 'Flowers bloom earlier as UK warms' is complete nonsense. As a nursery owner, gardener and garden designer I can assure anyone who is interested that plants will respond extremely well indeed to the onset of spring, whenever it comes! Spring this year, for instance, is rather late which is why daffodills and wild plum species are only just coming into bloom. He only had to look outside for goodness sake!
Steveta, Mingmong
The scientific concensus is that man-made global warming is happening.
The flowers that bloom in the spring, tra la, have nothing to do with the case.
http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/mikado/webopera/mk209.html
The American Association for the Advancement of Science had a meeting on April 3rd about "Climate change scepticism - its sources and strategies". Audio and transcript are at
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2859986.htm
Dreadnought, Oh how I wish I'd remembered that line before you. If there ever was evidence that the whole business has turned into a comic opera, that has to be it!
To the Bishop:
Take a look at this:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100406/full/464821a.html
Since you wrote about about an illusory Hockey Stick, this is a real hockey stick. :)