Tuesday
Jan112011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Focus magazine on sceptics
Jan 11, 2011 Climate: Sceptics P Gosselin reports on a sceptic friendly article in the German Focus magazine, covering the recent EIKE conference of sceptics.
The story looks in-depth at the climate conference and the overall atmosphere for skeptics in Germany, but does it fairly, something we are not at all accustomed to from the rest of the hostile media here in the Vaterland.
Reader Comments (17)
Listening to Deutschlandfunk, and Rundfunk Berlin Brandenburg (R.B.B), I was pleasently surprised to find that they ALWAYS point out that "The science is not settled" and that "XYZ" sais something else, when reporting "climate change caused by CO2" interviews, or whatever.
The University of Potsdam appears to be quite open minded on the subject, in particular.
Quite refreshing, when a touch half hearted. At least they DO acknowledge a different view.
On a slightly different note 'Skeptic' has too many negative connotations.
Should we not be trying to brand ourselves as Realists?
Nial.
As we are on Europe...
Hungary's media is totally warmist. And much of it is the sentimental stuff. Hungarians, due to their history, also have a strong melancholy in their culture (for many valid reasons), and this doomsday stuff seems to fit in with it.
Within the professional classes here CAGW just seems to be accepted as fact. I have never once heard anyone question anything on the Radio (state Radio here is the place where it is possible to listen to anything resembling a reasonable conversation or argument - commercial media is a joke.)
all climate research funding should be like this starting 2011:
50% of full amount given for the initial research.
50% of full amount paid only if forecasts and models are proven correct.
under this model, british taxpayers would have saved 50% of the millions they spent on the MET office.
Paul, if they did that, they would never produce a long range forecast...
Opps, no change there then :)
Can we please keep comments on topic. Thanks.
One bit in Pierre's report struck a familiar note - his remark about their MPs (just like most of ours!) going on about 'deniers'.
Using this expression means that one is not willing to even listen to the arguments brought forward by skeptics. I am sure we have all come across this extraordinary mental attitude of otherwise quite normal and inquisitive AGW proponents of being totally unwilling to even look at sites such as this, or totally rejecting out of hand to visit WUWT.
It is similar to children who put their hands over their eyes because then they can't see what is there, hoping it will go away.
I find it reminiscent of the proverbial Victorian spinsters who couldn't even bring themselves to speak of 'trousers' and who clothed the legs of their grand pianos so as not to be reminded of male legs ...
To Jiminy Cricket,
I see no negative connotation in the word "skeptic". All good scientists have a strong skeptic streek.
@sean
Sorry you have lost me there lad...
This is not 100 per cent relevant but on the subject of media. Did anyone else see Ben Miller's programme on BBC Two last night about defining one degree? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xhz90
He shifts subtly from science to pseudo-science. After an actually quite enjoyable discussion of temperature and how it's measured, he suddenly pops along to the Met Office's weather station at the BT tower and gives credence to some daft woman going on about the summer of 2003. The best bit was when he interviewed this guy explaining the significance of a one degree increase in the average. He showed that at the upper limit, you would double the number of extremely tall people of a certain heigh (running with the example he used). Unfortunately, he omitted to mention that you would of course also halve the number of very short people of a certain height. Translating this to temperatures, it would be reasonable to predict that a one-degree increase would result in very low temperatures (characterised, say, by snowy winters) becoming a very rare event. Ironically, precisely such a prediction was actually made in that infamous Independent article in 2000. Hoist by their own petard methinks.
The article serves to highlight the suffocating pressure applied by the climate Establishment everywhere:
But no, the apologists insist, climate science isn't politicised and terminally infected with reflexive, self-serving alarmism. Only dishonest and unbalanced sceptics believe that.
A very fair-minded article. It makes you realise just how intellectually corrupt and lazy the BBC has become.
Re Blingmum
Just watched the Horizon show and thought it was quite an interesting take on it. Key parts were 'measurement is everything' and heat is energy, which is the great debate. Are the current temperature measurements accurate and are the energy assumptions used in the GCM's accurate? If so, why Trenberth's missing heat and the lack of predictive skill from models. I also thought the BT Tower segment was good given it highlights the uncertainties around UHI effects, ie they only recently started measuring this recently because it's recognised UHI effects are real, and without measurement they can't be quantified, so adjustments made for UHI without measurement may be unjustified. I did disagree a bit about cities expanding=warming though given it's more about energy density, so higher density populations generally mean warmer.
And it was also nice to see the Reality Checkpoint, which having been a student there was a nice demonstration of UHI. Walk away from the sheltered town centre and frequently got blasted by bitterly cold winds across Parker's Piece before getting to the warmth of Mill Road and it's pubs and kebabs. Shame the local council won't officially recognise that landmark :p
Times are changing. People are getting ready to jump off the bandwagon or at least slowly beginning to realize what's going on (mostly unconsciously). Denial is the strangest thing.
I watched Horizon last night and, after overcoming (Ph.D.) Miller's feigned ignorance of basic physics found it quite enjoyable until the discussion about statistics.
I don't suppose they had time to discuss whether a global temperature average actually means anything...
P Gosselin's post on his own post at 22:14 on 10 Jan qualifies for the quote of the week, surely?
'I don’t know for sure, but I think I’d rather blow off my kneecap then to get burned'.
@ Vic
re- I find it reminiscent of the proverbial Victorian spinsters who couldn't even bring themselves to speak of 'trousers' and who clothed the legs of their grand pianos so as not to be reminded of male legs ...
tell me you jest, if not well i'll be damned. did top piano scientists back up this claim.
ps. watched the horizon prog & was not impressed (again). did he really say he's a physicist?