Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Boulton contradicts Sir Muir | Main | Subprime science »
Sunday
Feb142010

Spring arrived early

...because it must be April fool's day. Bob Watson has declared that there is a problem with global warming science because of all the errors that have been identified in the IPCC reports:

Professor Watson, who served as chairman of the IPCC from 1997-2002, said: “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

But here's the hilarious bit - as well as saying that the IPCC should look at where the problems came from, Bob Watson has another plan, this time to convince us all of the credibility of what we're being told:

Professor Watson has held discussions with Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, about creating a new climate research group to supplement the work of the IPCC and to help restore the credibility of climate science.

Al Gore! Restore the credibility of climate science!!?? This is a joke, right?

(H/T Lubos Motls)

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (12)

From The Times:

"Meanwhile, a member of the inquiry team investigating allegations of misconduct by climate scientists has admitted that he holds strong views on climate change and that this contradicts a founding principle of the inquiry. Geoffrey Boulton, who was appointed last week by the inquiry chairman, Sir Muir Russell, said he believed that human activities were causing global warming.

Sir Muir issued a statement last week claiming that the inquiry members, who are investigating leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia, did not have a “predetermined view on climate change and climate science”.

Professor Boulton told The Times: “I may be rapped over the knuckles by Sir Muir for saying this, but I think that statement needs to be clarified. I think the committee needs someone like me who is close to the field of climate change and it would be quite amazing if that person didn’t have a view on one side or the other.”"

How many other panel members hold the same view as Boulton and Campbell?

It seems that is a question that Sir Muir Russell had failed to ask.

That raises a big question mark over the competence of Russell. Maybe he should consider his own position as chairman of this panel.

Feb 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

"That raises a big question mark over the competence of Russell. Maybe he should consider his own position as chairman of this panel."

I thought that was a given - to quote from his Wikipedia entry ...

"He was widely believed to be primarily responsible for the massive overspend on the new Scottish Parliament Building and was criticised by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie's enquiry for failing to keep the politicians informed that the expenditure was far in excess of the budget."

Feb 14, 2010 at 10:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterAJC

For a quick intro to Gores climate change "wikipedia" here's the link to one he made earlier.http://www.theclimateprojectus.org/tcpnews.php
Have a trawl around the site it makes interesting reading.

Feb 14, 2010 at 10:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave"the denier"

Mac

Posted it.

Feb 14, 2010 at 10:26 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Bob seemed pretty sure of the situation back in September last year:

"RE: AMV-BBDO/Department of Energy Change’s climate literacy campaign (‘Storybook’)

We are concerned that the basic scientific inferences referred to in the latest DECC ACT ON CO2 public engagement campaign are being brought into question by Clearcast.

We are both surprised and disturbed that the premise of the television campaign is being questioned, given the incontrovertible nature of the science that underpins the campaign material, which is founded on basic physics, a vast body of peer-reviewed scientific literature, and an overwhelming consensus of climate science experts. " etc etc

http://www.channel4.com/news/media/2009/12/day04/climate_change_letter.doc

Good to see his views are becoming a bit less dogmatic in the Times article:

“We should always be challenged by sceptics,” he said. “The IPCC’s job is to weigh up the evidence. If it can’t be dismissed, it should be included in the report. Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view.”

The rest of the article seems to describe the existing function of the blogosphere, apart from the current "dig(ging) into the references" etc isn't restricted to "graduate science students".

Anybody know the status of the ASA Inquiry?

Feb 14, 2010 at 11:36 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

As to the incredulity about Gore, the strategy may be driven by a concern about the loss of credibillty of the IPCC among its supporters and former supporters. Gore has credibility among these people. Die hard critics of the IPCC will never be convinced. AGW science has reached a level of discredit that that is not possible. So convincing these critics would not be the objective of this strategy of enlisting Gore.

Feb 14, 2010 at 11:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterTAG

Al Gore: "It's Worse than we thought"
http://blog.algore.com/2010/02/worse_than_we_thought.html

Posted 2 days ago.

Obviously he doesn't read the newspapers.

Feb 15, 2010 at 12:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterAndy Scrase

lol.

As far as comedy goes, I'm still waiting on Bill Maher to address climategate scandal since he has branded everyone who doesn't believe in AGW as cave-dwellers.

Feb 15, 2010 at 1:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterKevin

I enjoyed this spelling mistake by Watson or the reporter:

`He rejected concerns that the project would undermine the IPCC’s authority. “It would have to be done so it was complimentary and not a challenge to the IPCC,” he said.'

I suspect he meant `complementary', but secretly he longs for it to be `complimentary' too.

Feb 15, 2010 at 7:28 AM | Unregistered Commenteroptimist

Gore is just the man to restore credibility to climate science, indeed!

Feb 15, 2010 at 12:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterP Gosselin

Sadly, I suspect this to be a ploy for Watson and Gore to "save the IPCC", enjoying the associated power, limelight, and $$. Right now they're just bit players.

Feb 15, 2010 at 3:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterMinB

Amazing

It's a bit like going to see Dr Shipman to restore the credibility of GPs.

Proves how deep their bias runs. They can't even see themselves doing it any longer, it's just the "natural reaction" to anything new or facts that dont fit or opposition to their beliefs...go and see another warmist, that'll sort it out. Madness.

Feb 16, 2010 at 12:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohnRS

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):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>