Channel Four on BEST

Tom Clarke, the Channel Four science correspondent, manages to display an almost complete ignorance of what Climategate was about in last night's segment on the BEST paper.

This is rather surprising, because he was closely involved in the Climategate story at the time.

Comments

[Shub]

Did you see how they chopped Phil Jones right at the end?

[Pete H]

O/T, I hate to do it but have you seen the article in the Times on Windmills Bish? I just cut and pasted over at "Topics for those interested.

[Mailman]

Link please pete.

[Pete H]

By the way, has the BEST thing even been published yet? I mean in a journal not the meja blitz that they seem to have sadly gone for. Have they actually answered the peer reviewers comments or changed the errors? Peer review being poor these days one can understand how thin skinned certain "Climatologists" are to their critics.

I must admit I thought A. Watts was nuts to go anywhere near this lot back when they started. Maybe it was certain people involved that made the hairs stick up on my neck!

[Pete H]

Article at GWPF Mailman. No more from me here Bish! Sorry again for O/T

http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-news/4149-green-tax-revolt-government-mat-be-forced-to-killing-wind-subsidies.html

[Jack Maloney]

News Flash! The global climate is warming!

These gormless journalists don't seem to realize that the world climate has been warming ever since the Ice Age ended 12,000 years ago. The question is, what causes climate change? And the honest answer thus far is, we aren't exactly sure.

Most reasonable people understand that there are many forces driving the climate, some only dimly understood, some yet unknown. We still have much to learn about this complex and chaotic climate system. Only the arrogant claim they had the answer twenty years ago; only the ignorant claim "the science is settled."

[Pharos]

The almost orgasmic delight with which the environmental press lobby has spun the BEST results is the clearest signal yet of how desolate the furrow is, that they now find themselves struggling to plough, in the less gullible fields of public opinion.

[Scots Renewables]

The 'climategate' emails allegedly showed that there was a 'decline' in global temperatures that had been 'hidden' using a 'trick'

This has now been shown to be paranoid nonsense. I see nothing wrong with the CH4 report. It makes perfect sense to all except the little group of conspiracy theorists on here.

[LC]

@Scots Renewables Oct 23, 2011 at 4:46 PM

“The 'climategate' emails allegedly showed that there was a 'decline' in global temperatures that had been 'hidden' using a 'trick'“

Are you really that uninformed that you believe that statement to be true? That nearly two years after “Climategate” and countless discussions across the blogosphere about the “Hide the decline” affair, you really still believe it was about a hidden decline in global temperatures? Sheesh.

[Peter B]

Scots Renewables:

The 'climategate' emails allegedly showed that there was a 'decline' in global temperatures that had been 'hidden' using a 'trick'

The only people who ever made such an allegation are those who, like yourself, are completely clueless about this subject.

Nobody knowledgeable - least of all Andrew Montford, Anthony Watts or Steve McIntyre - ever said that the "hidden decline" had anything - anything at all - to do with a "decline in global temperatures". What it did involve was a decline in the correlation between the tree ring data of a particular set - from Keith Briffa - and the actual temperatures as measured. In other words: the global temperatures were rising even as those tree rings behaved as if they were falling. Since that decline cast into doubt the very correlation between tree rings and temperatures, it was hidden by a trick.

[Neil Craig]

I saw the 2 C4 churnalists talking with each other and agreeing this disproved all scepticism. They then asked each other if this would automatically convince all sceptics and at last decided to get some outside information on what sceptics think - they asked Phil Jones.

[Orson]

Canada's first PhD (Lond.) degreed climatologist weighed in on BESTs latest report in an online interview, Dr. Tim Ball:

The BEST study...adds nothing to advancing the understanding of the degree of climate change. Until that is adequately defined and described there is no hope of determining the underlying causes and mechanisms of change.  The failure to understand the complete inadequacy of the existing temperature record is troubling.

What's most troubling is that a "science" reporter says the UHI/LUC problem has been sussed out by BEST - when is fact nothing of the sort has been done. Such deception (or incompetence).

[Orson]

Here's the Q&A link to Dr. Ball's interview.