Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Nature editorial on Climategate | Main | Raising the temperature »

House hearing reports

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.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (11)

Anybody know what the "multiple methods for calculating the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide" are?

Nov 18, 2010 at 9:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Ben Santer was his usual self-effacing self. Was he looking in a mirror?

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientist Ben Santer hammering on noted sceptic Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute for cherry-picking evidence, misleading lawmakers, ignoring uncertainties in his own numbers while highlighting uncertainty in others' data, and just generally being wrong.

Nov 18, 2010 at 9:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

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?

Nov 18, 2010 at 10:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterTony Hansen

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.

Nov 18, 2010 at 11:27 AM | Unregistered Commenterpete

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.

Nov 18, 2010 at 11:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterB. Kindseth

Wait until January. The coming storm was rumbling in this meeting. Given this, it will be a perfect storm.

Nov 18, 2010 at 2:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra


"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 The Great Beyond the Bishop points to in another thread:

Most importantly, it was also a gentle preview of things to come, a kind of practice run for climate scientists who will soon face a much more hostile audience when Republicans take over the US House of Representatives.

Nov 18, 2010 at 3:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Where can I watch this?

Nov 18, 2010 at 3:35 PM | Unregistered Commenterpax


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.

Nov 18, 2010 at 4:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

I prefer Noh theatre, thanks.

Nov 18, 2010 at 6:51 PM | Unregistered Commentermojo

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

Nov 18, 2010 at 9:42 PM | Unregistered Commenterianl8888

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>