The Lords on Working Group II

There was an amusing exchange in the Lords this morning, when Matt Ridley questioned Baroness Verma about the Working Group II report (from 24 mins)

Comments

[Richard Drake]

Gosh, the Baroness has picked up more of a tan than I remember!

[Athelstan.]

Verma, what a twonk - Ridley made an excellent point but it was lost on Verma - she is a thicko.

Since when has Siemens been a 'British' company?

[Athelstan.]

Since when was Siemens a 'British' company?

[Phillip Bratby]

There is no doubt that the Government is living in some sort of fantasy land (as Nick Clegg would put it).

[agouts]

Jesus, where did they get these cretinous deadbeats from? Inarticulate and incoherent. Useless.

[PMT]

Good Lord, the Lords Sceptical.

[JustAnotherPoster]

This is brutal.......

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/global-warming-is-rubbish-says-top-professor-1-6536732

[filbert cobb]

Baroness V explained the policy very clearly - anything will do, nothing won't.

[graphicconception]

I could get into this Internet thing.

One minute you see one of our noble lords making silly comments about deniers (about 30:00) and the Somerset floods and a few moments later you have an email with 8 points explaining why you think that was silly winging its way to the House of Lords.

I don't expect it to do any good but I certainly feel much better!

[Cheshirered]

Low carbon business opportunities..."a 3.2 trillion pound market place."

And there it is.

[sHx]

My noble Lord in red at 23:30, you are falling asleep my Lord.

[David S]

Interesting to see the inclination of active and retired bishops towards climate hysteria - a modern version of original sin.

[Messenger]

Richard Drake
Are you sure you aren't confusing her with the equally alarmist but somewhat paler Baroness Worthington?

[Stonyground]

She keeps using the word "investment" I don't think it means what she think it means.

Toward the end there is an idiot suggesting that "Deniers" take a trip to the Somerset Levels is seemingly unaware that, despite really really wishing that they could, alarmists have been unable to link the floods to climate change. In fact, the instrumental records for rainfall show no trend as far back as they go, so don't they provide evidence for climate staying the same rather than changing?

[Headless Chicken]

Gives you a warm feeling inside that everything will be alright with our noble friend Baroness Verma at the helm, not.

[Spillinger]

It reminds me of a cup tie when the game is up, and the fans are getting ready to leave the stadium.

[diogenes]

Drake...can you please explain the relevance of the baroness's tan?

[ZT]

Less edifying than bingo...but at least they get paid for participating.

[RM]

i posted on a guardian story but they don't seem to want to understand:

"You do understand that the area is originally swampland that was only reclaimed by building drainage, if you allow the land not to drain constantly(by dredging the drainage channels), it will turn back to a swamp, Then when you get some heavy rain( like we always do) it floods. Add in all the ill advised building and you will be screwed.

I think they need to send the hydrologist's back to dunce school, as it looks like this has all been forgotten due to the reliance on models that are too simplified to match the real world, in programming terms GIGO - Garbage In = Garbage Out, The real world generally has to many variables that are to interrelated to figure out with any accuracy so it is simplified with fudge factors.

(even the programmer trying to sort out some UEA code and data for temperature rise, couldn't figure out how the hell they got the results as he could NOT reproduce it!!, so how the hell they got it past peer review is amazing)

I grew up in an area much the same as down there, the pumping stations ran pretty much all year just to stop it turning back to swamp."

[RM]

And again in the same guardian story they just seem unable to think for themselves:

calcit rockyrex

04 April 2014 3:24pm
Recommend
0

If you have the raw numbers and the algorithms you don't need to be! to be able check what they think they see is correct or not.

do you or a climatologist know that 0.1 decimal does not equal an exact number in binary (in binary it ends up being like pi an infinitely long list).

In banking they use a different calculation method to keep the accuracy.

But for the amount of calculations and the finite amount of computing power to work out the model calcs for speed they will not be using those methods, at each iteration the error gets BIGGER and BIGGER.

Do please study some number theory and computing science before making idiot comments.

Reply
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

rockyrex calcit

04 April 2014 3:36pm
Recommend
0

Every scientific organisation in the world accepts the science of climate change.

If there is something wrong with the climate science, they might like to hear from you.

My comment:

"So you are not a climatologist, or a palaeoclimatologist, or a glaciologist, or an atmospheric physicist, or an oceanographer ........"

is a way of pointing out that this area of science

- relies on a whole range of scientific disciplines

- all of which regularly use all manner of mathematical methods and

- all of which (and many others) agree with the 'climate consensus'.

here's something from geologists:

https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/About/Working-for-the-Society/~/~/link.aspx?_id=7A3775341F8B4861804751D98FADB7BA&_z=z

Reply
Report
Share this comment on Twitter
Share this comment on Facebook

calcit rockyrex

04 April 2014 4:22pm
Recommend
0

And still you show you do not understand.

IT'S the NUMBERS, basing conclusions on garbage = garbage.

They are not computer experts, the underlying computing is junk.

They are not stats experts, the if stats people say they have used bad algorithms, it does not matter what they say they think is happening based on bad data.

People who think they are clever over estimate their understanding and do not understand why its garbage.

look at how fudges were historically used to calculate planet orbits (kept adding fudges to try make it look right) until the correct maths was worked out!!. (as a side note the errors between calculated (correctly) and observed motion allows us to find tiny planetoids and other stuff, so is now useful)

We are still in the age of climate fudges, adding more fudged variables does not help, fiddling raw data because it does not agree with your opinion IS NOT SCIENCE!!!!!! and does not help us understand what is going on!!