Thursday
Nov182010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill House hearing reports
Nov 18, 2010 Climate: Parliament Climate: other 
I didn't get a chance to watch Curry et al. at the House of Representatives yesterday, although I made a start with Lindzen.
Meanwhile, there is a report at Nature's Great Beyond blog.
Reader Comments (11)
Anybody know what the "multiple methods for calculating the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide" are?
Ben Santer was his usual self-effacing self. Was he looking in a mirror?
An interesting article at Nature's Great Beyond blog about Anil Potti.
".....Those trials were suspended in 2009 after biostatisticians Keith Baggerly and Kevin Coombes of the University of Texas’ MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston reported that they had been unable to reproduce Potti's results. The trials were restarted in January 2010, after a review panel appointed by Duke concluded that the data in Potti’s paper was reliable, and suspended again in July 2010, after questions were raised about Potti’s resume.
Duke told Cancer Letter in October that the data being retracted are among those cleared by its review board in 2009, raising the question how it could have reached such an erroneous conclusion".
A review board reaching an erroneous conclusion after investigating one of their own people - how could that ever happen?
Alley said. "If this were a video game, I would push the button and see what happens - it would be very exciting."
I think this is part of the problem, the video game generation think climate models are sim earth, they're running round saying the right thing to collect extra credits to fight the big bad CO2 monster at the end of the level.
The Nature reporter’s comment, "It was a throwback to days gone by, a time when the science itself was under dispute and not what to do about it." is telling about the attitude of Nature. Real scientist always question the science. Real reporters should definitely question the science. Especially a reporter who works for a science magazine such as Nature. The whole climategate affair was about psuedo-scientists who were afraid of anyone questioning their science and who went to great lengths to dodge FOI requests. The whistle-blower who released the Climategate e-mails even used “FOI” in the name of the file.
Wait until January. The coming storm was rumbling in this meeting. Given this, it will be a perfect storm.
Nial
"Jones would I’m sure not thank me for this, but I cannot help but enjoy baiting the deniers. They are beyond reason, and are thus fair game."
Quite right, Nial. It is not wise to kick a sleeping dog with very sharp teeth. To quote from the Nature.com The Great Beyond the Bishop points to in another thread:
Where can I watch this?
Here
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/11/17/HP/A/40918/House+Science+Technology+Subcommittee+Hearing+on+Climate+Change+Science.aspx
Miserable bunch of doomsters the warmists are. And I think they've now censored the term 'optimum' in reference to the Medieval or other warm period- gives the wrong message.
I prefer Noh theatre, thanks.
Most of the set pieces were as one would expect, based simply on published positions in both journals and websites. The protagonists generally just talked past one another ... but then, it wasn't a debate, only set piece exposition
But Heidi-ho was jaw-dropping for her "dumbing down" efforts. She should have remained on the Weather Channel, but it seems she has made the mistake of giving up her day job