Bishop Hill Telegraph letters
Jan 1, 2011 Climate: Oxburgh Climate: Parliament Climate: Russell Climate: Surface Climate: WG3 Climate: Ward Two letters to the Telegraph from familiar faces today. First Bob Ward takes a pot-shot at Booker for questioning the integrity of the Climatic Research Unit.
SIR – Christopher Booker (December 26) claims that emails from the University of East Anglia “showed how the little group of scientists at the heart of the IPCC had been prepared to bend their data and to suppress any dissent from warming orthodoxy”.
Independent inquiries led by the Commons Science and Technology Committee, Sir Muir Russell, Lord Oxburgh, and the US Environmental Protection Agency found such allegations to be untrue.
Mr Booker stated that “much of the northern hemisphere” in 2007 suffered “the winter from hell”. In fact, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the average temperature in the northern hemisphere for the boreal winter in 2007-8 was the 14th highest since records began, and 0.36C above the standard reference average for 1961-90.
He also claimed that the boreal winters in the northern hemisphere in 2008-9 and 2009-10 were “colder still”, when they were, respectively, the 8th and 9th warmest on record.
Bob Ward
Grantham Research Institute
London School of Economics
London WC2
Then Tim Worstall considers yet another piece of government lunacy, this time centred around the recommendations of the Stern report.
SIR – Having read the Stern Review, the various IPCC reports and multitudes of economic papers on what to do about the entire problem, assuming we accept that there is such a problem, it is clear that the policies being recommended by those experts are: a carbon tax, or a cap-and-trade system, or subsidies to new technologies.
All of the economists say the same thing. Any one of the three are viable and whole solutions.
Cap-and-trade limits emissions; a carbon tax provides the incentive to reduce them to the needed level; and subsidies will replace emitting with non-emitting sources of energy.
So now my question: having hired Lord Stern at some expense, having analysed his recommendations at presumably greater, why is the Government now insisting at gargantuan expense in doing what Lord Stern said we should not do?
We only need to choose one of the three – rather than be charged thrice to do all of them.
Tim Worstall
Messines, Portugal
Reader Comments (13)
OT, for which I apologise.
There's an outfit called 'Skeptics in the Pub' which in my home town of Oxford claim to be sceptic about everything, but in practise it seems that only scepticism about alternative medicine is really in order.
They are putting on an event in Edinburgh on Thursday 20 Jan. on 'The Evidence for Climate Change'.
http://edinburgh.skepticsinthepub.org/
It would be nice if a few of the Bishop's North British friends could put in an appearance to show what 'Skeptics in the Pub' what scepticism really means.
Cherry picking sceptics!
[Snip - Not necessary - even when redacted]. A given hemispheric temperature average value is compatible with a wide range of seasonal weather trends in a single season.
What he has written in his letter misrepresents the math.
David C.
Yes, unfortunately it's the kind of scepticism epitomized by Ben Goldacre and James Randi.
Daringly they are sceptical of the likes of homeopathy, drug company funded research, spoon bending and mediums. Well, who with an IQ in more than single figures isn't?
However, anyone who says anything which basically chimes with their world view can spout any old b******s and they fall for it. In fact they will vociferously attack anyone who dares to be really sceptical about said b******s.
It is everywhere. In the summer I went to what was billed as a discussion on Glabal Warming held in the Abbey at Dorchester on Thames. The evening had been preceded by posters Photoshopped to show the village High Street under about 12 feet of water despite being several hundred feet above sea level. The evening began with the Rectorette saying how pleased she was that all the children in the Cofe Primary School were really aware of this terrible threat. She then introduced three speakers (who I discovered later had all been paid to be there by someone though the event was free.
Each of the three then got ten minutes to rant about the Carbon Threat and how we must all change our lifestyles to fight against it. There were no speakers against. When the time came for questions I eventually got the mike and asked why there were no counter views before pointing out how increased temperatures, if they were actually to happen, would be of great economic benefit to our hemisphere and especially to agricultural output, plus a few other arguments pointing out that the science is not settled and there is not unanimity about the subject.
Embarrassed Rectorette mumbled about the difficulty in finding anyone to speak against but admitted that no real effort had been made to get anyone. Then a harangue from the paid speakers after which it was made clear that I was as welcome as a fart in a crowded lift. I was then refused any other chance to speak with the mike and had to be content with a few comments without it.
Really worrying to see so many closed minds especially in people old enough to know better.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7146947.stm
Quote: "It's a big one, a dangerous one," Environment Canada climatologist Dave Phillips told CTV, adding that more heavy snow was expected. Just because you have this one storm doesn't mean we're into the winter from hell, but my gosh, it's certainly started that way."
David C. : "Daringly they are sceptical of the likes of homeopathy, drug company funded research, spoon bending and mediums. Well, who with an IQ in more than single figures isn't?"
I am not. I have used homeopathy, on and off, successfully for over 40 years. It's been very useful, though I don't think it is very relevant to the weather. I think my IQ is at least 10, although it is only my opinion.
All
Homeopathy is off topic on this thread.
Ward, that snivelling excuse for an AGW advocate is being economical with the truth, what's new - I hear you cry?
He is, oh so creatively making comparisons with incompatible figures, Booker's references are to winter temps, Ward makes reference to world average temperature figures, which are so fudged and manipulated, they can hardly be believed at all.
It is however. worth pointing out that the, 3 most recent winters in the Boreal as Ward puts it, have been very cold, one wonders how cold, we'll never know really, most of the Boreal measuring/weather stations have been (somehow) closed/ignored/removed from the T measurement records - funny that - eh Bob?
One hopes that the Bob Ward letter opens the door for a substantial rebuttal. The evidence of the ineptitude of the various 'inquiries' is fairly clear.
Bob Ward is neither a practicing scientist nor a concerned citizen. He is not even just a man in the pub. He is in the pay of Jeremy Grantham, and is doing what he is paid to do: write letters to attack scepticism. His opinions have as much integrity as the Pope recommending Catholicism.
Even the IPCC states that Climate Predictions are not achievable.
That's why they use Predictions ie speculative scenarios, aka a trip to the bookies!
If the Met Office needs new kit then, I for one, have no problems with their thinking.
Finance is not a problem. All they've got to do is use their current processing capability, their chaos-conquering coding skills to solve a few trivial problems that will easily crumble under the weight of their collective intellect and analysis.
Chelsea v Man U. result, number of no-balls when Pakistan play Sri Lanka and etc.
Compared with the afore-mentioned, really tricky stuff thrown up by Momma Earth, this should be like playing top-trumps with a five-year old!
It's a no-brainer Ms J. You guys rock. Beat the Bookies. Buy the Best and kick Ass.
What could possibly go wrong?
Hint. Just ask Bob, "I've gotta Horse", Ward. He's pure, dead brilliant!
So he is.