Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
« New Yorkers want to secede to ensure their homes are destroyed by earthquakes and their drinking water poisoned | Main | Countdown to alarm - Josh 317 »
Tuesday
Mar032015

Climate Change by Numbers

I almost gave up on Climate Change by Numbers last night. By ten o'clock I was flagging fast and not really getting a lot from it which is a pity because it could have been brilliant.

The presentation was really well done. I thought the decision to have three different presenters paid off in spades and the producers did well to come up with three such engaging people - Norman Fenton, Hannah Fry and David Spiegelhalter - to front the show. I liked the style of having them completely separate and avoiding the cheesy infills that TV people seem to like so much. The decision to get just a little bit closer to the maths was a good one and the radical step of showing equations on screen seemed like a bit of a breakthrough.

But at the end of the day it was not the programme I'd hoped for and not the programme that the climate debate needs. There are two types of people who are interested in science - those who get excited by what science can do and those who get excited by what it is merely trying to do. Climate Change by Numbers seemed to me to be firmly in the first camp, with many familiar lines from the mainstream case for climate alarm set out in an accessible fashion alongside unusually technical explications of techniques such as kriging and homegenisation. For those of us who are interested in unanswered questions and scientific controversies there was nothing. This was, at the end of the day, a recitation of the global warming catechism with added geekiness.

Only occasionally did we get hints that there might be some interesting questions to examine. For example, just as almost every other climate programme has done, the presenters invited us to be impressed by the match between greenhouse-fuelled climate models and observations. But, and also just like every climate show before them, the presenters skipped past the tuning and the fudging and the impact of the pause. Norman Fenton's allusion to the extreme complexity of GCMs did suggest that there might be something interesting going on but there, unfortunately, the show moved swiftly on. Fenton's blog post on the show hints that he too found this frustrating, listing a whole series of interesting areas that he would liked to have examined and on which I think his statistician's brain could have shed a great deal of light. I guess none of us are fully in control of our own destiny.

In similar fashion, we were invited to be impressed by Hansen's Pinatubo predictions, a case that I have always seen as rather deceptive since it relates largely to the base greenhouse effect (which almost everyone agrees on) and not the long-term feedbacks (which they don't). This could have sparked an interesting exploration of the areas that climate scientists are just beginning to scratch the surface of, but this too was an opportunity spurned.

Clearly this was not a programme directed at me. But I'm not sure who the producers were directing it at either. I don't think it really cuts the mustard as a propaganda piece. Recitation of all these familiar arguments is not going to persuade anyone. And to misquote JS Mill, you really need to have a public clash of ideas to demonstrate the validity of your case and persuade people. Perhaps it was just a geek piece; something that climatologists can coo over and say "isn't the stuff we do cool". If so that's all well and good, but I hope my climatologist friends can understand that this is not for me: I'm from the "what we don't know" school of science.

And no matter how nice the presenters and how whizzy the graphics, I'm going to find the recitation of the climate litany rather dull. Even if they show me some equations.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (262)

Wijnand: I think Daimon is applying the precautionary principle. In this case, confront the opposition, but don't understand or engage with them.

Mar 3, 2015 at 7:12 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian

I found the programme boring and not very informative. Every time one of them said 'Most climate scientists think' I rolled my eyes and sighed. The Arrhenius equation that was cited in the documentary is false since it predicts a warming from the assumed CO2 increase of about 2.8C (i.e. T = Log2(400/280)*5.43) whereas the actual warming since 1880 is apparently 0.8C. The Arrhenius equation has been modified by the IPCC et al and the warming from CO2 is now actually rather small and they apply a positive feedback equation (ocassionally refered to as the `Hansen Factor`) that considerably boosts the small warming from CO2. It is these unproven positive feedbacks (mainly from water vapour) that was conveniently ignored in the programme. I could go on. It was very dissapointing.

Mar 3, 2015 at 7:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard

So, to summarise, the main thrust of this programme was "All our Big Scary Numbers are right, there is no doubt whatsoever that disaster is just around the corner if we don't abandon fossil fuels and vote green"?

Does this come as a surprise to anyone here?

It's a testament to the effectiveness of their propaganda that our latest visiting alarmist in this thread apparently believes that catastrophe is imminent on the basis of the actual "observed" temperature change (disregarding the fact that the historical baseline is rubbish), when all but the most loony claims need models, "tipping points", dubious positive feedbacks etc. to get anything at all happening.

Mar 3, 2015 at 8:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterNW

Douglas J Keenan

Why would this scientific documentary be the business of Parliament?

Also, please could you tell us more about how you are able to arrange the tabling of PQs?

How many PQs have you arranged to be tabled?

Mar 3, 2015 at 9:40 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

@Daimon Walker

The science that you claim "convinced you" is also deceiving you.

After all, you are choosing to believe a tiny handful of specific predictions at the expense of ignoring most predictions made by the same scientific field. May I ask that you explain with scientific rigor the majority that you choose to ignore, namely, those predictions that have not come to pass?

Allow us to assess your capacity to discriminate fact from fiction before we accede to your demands that we surrender our wallet.

Mar 3, 2015 at 9:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrute

Why would this scientific documentary be the business of Parliament?

Because it is yet another example of BBC bias in favour of politically motivated climate alarmism, which is contrary to its Charter?

The UK Climate Change Act is costing us £15 billion p.a. Are questions about the doubtful data and dubious models upon which the CO2 thesis rests no longer permitted in Parliament?

Mar 3, 2015 at 10:07 PM | Registered Commenterlapogus

Richard, anyone can "arrange" for a PQ to be tabled, you just need to talk to your MP. Most of them are keen to engage with their constituents and are also keen to be seen doing so. I have had a couple of questions raised by that means, although not recently. No conspiracy or brown envelopes are necessary

Mar 3, 2015 at 10:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterArthur Dent

It's difficult for me to say how disappointed I was with the program, given the people involved. David Spiegelhalter is a very good statistician but he surely must have realised what he was saying was nonsense. The x trillion tonnes of carbon figure is absolutely not determined by Monte Carlo sampling. To take his paintballing example a bit further, if you wanted to estimate what the probability of a shot going through the hole in the screen was, you would take a large independent random sample from the population you were interested in and count the number of successes. What Spiegelhalter surely would have realised if he had asked any questions at all, was that the sample of model runs used was neither large, nor independent, nor random (certainly not as a sample of possible future climates). It was like giving his gun to 5 or 6 people who had a couple of shots each, and all of whom had at least one eye missing.

Mar 3, 2015 at 10:12 PM | Unregistered Commentersnowrunner

Sounds to me that this programme represents a complete failure of courage in the climate wars. The battles seem to have been ignored, and far from being marched towards (at least), the sounds of gunfire seem not to have even been acknowledged.

Perhaps all involved think it was brave enough to talk about climate for and on the BBC without getting into demented alarmism during it? Maybe so, but disappointing.

At best a modest progress.

Mar 3, 2015 at 10:39 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

If it costs, say, a trillion to reduce the temp half a degree, would we not be better off to wait 50y when trillions no doubt come cheap (100x bigger economies) and then reduce many half degrees with "pocket change" ??

Why now, except for filling caviar marxists' pockets

Mar 3, 2015 at 10:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnd Then There's a Marxist

Richard Betts,

I'll leave your second and third questions to DK (or others). To answer your first question:

The BBC is funded by taxpayers. The Met Office is also funded by taxpayers.

I understand why you would support the idea that mediocre work from the publicly funded should not be questioned by Parliament. I see the Met Office's forecasts. I would hate to have to justify them.

I think that public spending should be subject to public scrutiny. I suppose I'm just an old-fashioned kind of person.

How much bonus will you get this year? It's public money, surely we should know how much, and for what?

Mar 3, 2015 at 10:52 PM | Unregistered Commenterjolly farmer

Finally got a chance to watch the prog and was not taken in by the logical fallacy that because climate scientists used a proven mathematical algorithm, then all climate science is therefore solid science. They presented no evidence for the original premise that CO2 can cause a dangerous rise in temperature, leading to catastrophic climate change.

Most of us who have followed this subject for more than a few years know that it is founded on the work of third-rate scientists using dodgy methods to process dodgy data.

Even if you do solid science on a load of garbage, it is still a load of garbage.

Mar 3, 2015 at 11:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Dawkins

Jack Dawkins, please remember that the dodgy data has been processed by very expensive computers, to make the public, who paid for it all, feel reassured.

I am not reassured, and it must be even more frustrating for the people who promised so much, from these sooper dooper expensive computers, that they still have not produced anything useful to justify the expense, apart from much improved weather forecasting, since the October 1987 storm, that wasn't forecast, using the recently installed supercomputer at Bracknell.

Mar 3, 2015 at 11:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

Billy Liar nailed who Daimon is in one!

"Daimon Walker ‏@daiwalker Good premise #zombieapocolypse world could do with a good plague.
2:10 pm - 15 Feb 2015
https://twitter.com/daiwalker/status/567083581777117185
Mar 3, 2015 at 5:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterBilly Liar"

Plug in the twitter address and go right to the quote. Click on @DaiWalker for Daimon's twitter profile and right there at the bottom he lists as following attp's twitter, including an attp twit; just another attp devotee acoylite.

Daimon was a set up visit and collusion.

Mar 4, 2015 at 12:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterATheoK

Professor Fenton’s attribution study found the wages bill was the major driver football club success.
I reckon he may be onto something there, directly applicable to Climate Change™ .

Mar 4, 2015 at 12:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterChris Hanley

Thanks for the informative review. As mathematicians they could have examined the 97% consensus claim as well. They could make clear surveys can give different results depending on how questions are phrased. For instance, asking climate scientists if humans cause climate will result in large number of yes responses because it can be interpreted to mean any degree of cause.
But instead asking if humans are the PRIMARY cause of climate change results in much smaller numbers of yes responses. At least two separate surveys that phrased the question this way only got about 50% yes responses among climate scientists.

Bob Clark

Mar 4, 2015 at 12:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Clark

Robert Clark, please do not confuse climatologists, with maths, science and facts, when dire warnings are what brings in the money.

97% is the magic number, written in rock, upon which climate science is built. Unfortunately, seaside rock is not widely recognised (outside of climate science) as being structurally sound.

Mar 4, 2015 at 1:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

I clicked on the youtube link this morning, clicked randomly on the progress bar and saw a woman standing next to a van and talking expressively to soothing background music about how a Kalman filter can clean up grainy videos .

Sciencey.

Mar 4, 2015 at 2:14 AM | Registered Commentershub

That's one of the problems in climsci, shub. These idiots run off to other fields to find techniques that will hell them out without understanding the reasons said techniques work for other applications. For example, IIRC, Mann's reconstructions violate almost every assumption PCA is based upon (as do all of the ridiculous independent verifications by other idiots). It is tiring...

Mark

Mar 4, 2015 at 3:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark T

"That's one of the problems in climsci, shub. These idiots run off to other
fields to find techniques...."

It sounds like the program was trying to justify creating data that doesn't exist? You just can't do that. You could create a model to guess what the missing values are but unless you can ground truth it and actually use your model to 'predict' missing values then it is just a guess. Even if it is great at predicting it is still just a model and could very well be wrong.

Also you can't 'clean' dodgy data you just have to live with it.... As has been pointed out many times the computer programs generate loads of 'output' but none of it is data.

Mar 4, 2015 at 4:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

"That's one of the problems in climsci, shub. These idiots run off to other
fields to find techniques...."

It sounds like the program was trying to justify creating data that doesn't exist? You just can't do that. You could create a model to guess what the missing values are but unless you can ground truth it and actually use your model to 'predict' missing values then it is just a guess. Even if it is great at predicting it is still just a model and could very well be wrong.

Also you can't 'clean' dodgy data you just have to live with it.... As has been pointed out many times the computer programs generate loads of 'output' but none of it is data.

Mar 4, 2015 at 4:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

The Kriging clip was excellent-- if only Climate Audit would realize it applies to the whole data spectrum , and inspired Monte Carlo methods as well!

Mar 4, 2015 at 4:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Jack Dawkins says:

"Most of us who have followed this subject for more than a few years know that it is founded on the work of third-rate scientists using dodgy methods to process dodgy data.

Even if you do solid science on a load of garbage, it is still a load of garbage."

A reminder on what Ms T Edwards had to say about the programme:

"I was the most involved consultant of the three, and I would say the program is as close a representation of my views as I could hope for, given they also have constraints of time and of trying to make it understandable and interesting :)"

Since the broadcast, nothing from Ms Edwards, and a quick fly-past by Mr Betts which seems to suggest that Mr Keenan is involved in a "cash for questions" scandal.

The worrying thing is that the Betts and Edwards of this world really do not understand why they are held in such contempt. They really are so lacking in insight.

You may think that they just do it for the money. I couldn't possib...

Mar 4, 2015 at 5:04 AM | Unregistered Commenterjolly farmer

The programme seemed to suggest the 95% figure was based upon statistical methods
Judith Curry in her interview after the IPCC report was released seemed to be less certain

Yesterday, a reporter asked me (Judith Curry) how the IPCC came up with the 95% number.
Here is the exchange that I had with him:

Reporter: I’m hoping you can answer a question about the upcoming IPCC report. When the report states that scientists are “95 percent certain” that human activities are largely to cause for global warming, what does that mean? How is 95 percent calculated? What is the basis for it? And if the certainty rate has risen from 90 n 2007 to 95 percent now, does that mean that the likelihood of something is greater? Or that scientists are just more certain? And is there a difference?

JC: The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors. The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain. How they can justify this is beyond me.

Reporter: You mean they sit around and say, “How certain are you?” “Oh, I feel about 95 percent certain. Michael over there at Penn State feels a little more certain. And Judy at Georgia Tech feels a little less. So, yeah, overall I’d say we’re about 95 percent certain.” Please tell me it’s more rigorous than that.

JC: Well I wasn’t in the room, but last report they said 90%, and perhaps they felt it was appropriate or politic that they show progress and up it to 95%.

Reporter: So it really is as subjective as that?

JC: As far as I know, this is what goes on. All this has never been documented.

.

Mar 4, 2015 at 7:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterNeil Hampshire

@ jolly farmer.

The lovely Tamsin did indeed request we all 'wait for the show before commenting'. Well Tamsin, where for art thou...?

Mar 4, 2015 at 7:18 AM | Unregistered Commentercheshirered

I do not understand what involvement T Edwards had, given that she was not one of the three presenters, but I am surprised that she has not made an appearance since the programme was shown.

The programme makers deliberately chose mathematicians and not climate scientists since thes plucky 'fools' could just accept the science of climate science, and accept it sound (note the comments on the computer models being robust and based on known physics and the troposphere hotspot which is teh finger print of CO2 warming but is something that has notably not been measured) and then just talk about the mathematics behind the numbers.

What surprises me is that anyone would wish to become a newcomer to this debate at this late stage just as it is appearing that the wheels are coming off fast. One of the presenters correctly stated (assuming that the 'science' of GHE is correct) that whenever CO2 is added to the atmosphere there must be an increase in temperature.

The science (if it is correct) is that an increase in CO2 will always (not may, not sometimes, but WILL ALWAYS) lead to warming. This means that every year when there has been an increase in CO2 there must be warming unless some other factor (consistent with the theory) cancelled out that warming or was such to not simply overcome the effects of the CO2 induced warming but also produced cooling. The upshot is that for each and every individual year when the corresponding warming has not occured, cliamate scientists aere obliged to expalin what happened that year to overcome the warming effects of the increased CO2.

It does not take a rocket scientist to immediately recognise that (i) there is no first order correlation between the rise in CO2 and the thermometer record, (ii) that there are 3 warming periods in the record and that there is no statistical difference in the rate of warming during these 3 periods notwithstanding that 2 of those warming periods were obviously not CO2 induced but rather due to natural processes (Phil Jones even conceded that in the famous BBC interview), (iii) just when manmade CO2 emissions began to take off (post 1940s) there was cooling, not warming, and (iv)the 18 year 'pause' is inconsistent with the theory especially since during this time approximately 30% of all manmade emissions have occured, and if CO2 has a long residency time with locked in effect, there is the locked in effect of the previous 50 years of CO2 emissions all of which should have driven significant warming these past 18 years (ie., Hansen's BAU projection).

One would have though that a newcomer to this 'debate' would be wary to step in at this particular stage inview of the above. Why become associated with something that may well fall apart within the next 5 or so years? Does not make sense to me.

There is an interesting case to present on the mathematics and statistics behind climate science. It would have been interesting to examine to examine to what extent it is correct to claim GLOBAL temperatures based upon the sparse sampling in the 19th century, and prior to the 1950s, the effects of station drop outs on the data, infilling, UHI etc.

What are the error bars associated with measurements each decade since the 1880s, and can one claim knowledge to tenths of a degree?

What are the differences in the rate of warming seen during the various warming periods, wand was the late 1970s onwards warming any different to that of the earlier warming periods? Phil Jones has accepted that there is no statistical difference.

On models, they could have examined the consequences of not one single model (out of the 100 or so models) being able to reproduce the recent temperature history stll less that of the Holocene. They could have examined whether one can average the model runs and extract anything meaningful from this averaging. They could have examined that the models are now on or outside their 95% confidence bounds etc. They could have lloked at some of the points raised by RGB on whatsupwiththat.

All in all, a very disappointing programme, but one that was as expected.

Mar 4, 2015 at 7:22 AM | Unregistered Commenterrichard verney

If you want to know Tamsin's views just watch her recent presentation here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP5nhmp06xs

Quite striking that the word uncertainty gets bandied about, but at the same time as expressing certainty that its Man what's doing it, pretty much the same message as given by this program. Apparently, more and more of those darned sceptics are signing up to this as well.

Mar 4, 2015 at 8:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterMikky

@Richard Betts.


It is (yet another) ridiculous biased BBC product.

Jesus, people on the public payroll just don't get it. It is money provided by all taxpayers and so the output (including yours Richard) should be balanced, fair and unbiased.

This drivel wasn't.

Everyone here has picked up on the laugh-fest that was the "complex modeling (chortle) of the Premier League".

All that proved was that the market for players is largely efficient and rational. Better players tend to get paid more. Of course, always bearing in mind that there are excluded variables - which would render the statistical inference error filled misleading - see Moneyball for absolute and utterly incontrovertible experimentally derived proof of this.

Mar 4, 2015 at 8:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko

@Mikky.

You have to understand the game.

"uncertainty" means "My untenured academic position and research grants are extremely important so we can probe the uncertainty".

Of course, "uncertainty" also has the unwritten qualifier "it is only the finer details of which we are uncertain" -as if they are conducting a research project to find the ten zillionth decimal of Pi.


Why do you think we are getting a 6th all singing and dancing "Assessment Report" from the IPCC? Bring on the gravy boys... Some more nice global jet-setting gigs on offer for the likes of Edwards, Betts et al. All on your dollar/pound/Euro/Yen of course.

Mar 4, 2015 at 8:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko

I truly wonder if climate "scientists" ever stop and wonder why such a large proportion of the (extremely well educated and read) population find their work so trivial/flawed/partial?

Or do the just sail on in the belief that 50% of the population are so much more stupid than they?

Mar 4, 2015 at 8:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko

Richard Verney- Thank you for putting it so well.

Mar 4, 2015 at 8:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterJo Beaumont

Arthur Dent

Yes, I know anyone can ask their MP to table a question in Parliament - so why does Doug Keenan need to offer to help out with this?

Lapogus, Jolly Farmer,

I'm not suggesting any money is involved here. I'm just asking why Doug considers himself to be in a position to arrange something which (as Arthur Dent says) anyone could ask their MP about.

I'm also wondering why he even thinks it is necessary to go through Parliament, with all the expense this would incur to the taxpayer / license fee payer? (The Parliamentary Question would be put to the relevant minister, who would pass it to their department, and it would filter down through the system to the right person, who would then be required to answer it and pass it back up the chain. All this involves lots of people's time.

Doug Keenan has previously contacted people like Doug McNeall and myself about statistical matters to do with climate research, and he has received responses direct from us and indeed a fair amount of discussion. Going via Parliament seems like rather unnecessary escalation.

Bishop Hill - given your recent post on the over-the-top 'investigation' of Roger Pielke Jnr, Judy Curry etc in the US (which I agree was unnecessarily intrusive and time-wasting), do you think that it is appropriate for your blog to be used for trawl for questions to be arranged to be tabled in Parliament about this scientific documentary?

Mar 4, 2015 at 8:50 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

@Richard,


The Parliament should be used to question whether the BBC is upholding its charter. It isn't about this program in isolation, but the obvious pattern, as well as the least secretive, top secret, NGO inspired meeting in the BBC that set the one-sided editorial policy on climate science.

Mar 4, 2015 at 9:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko

Two of the three numbers selected were perhaps the most controversial parts of AR5.

0.85C : This covers the standard temperaure anomaly analysis showing a rise of 0.85C since 1880 and is uncontroversial. However the recent pause in warming is controversial and was dismissed as a statistical fluke which also may also be biased because of undersampling in the Arctic. Incredibly the Evaluation of Climate models in chapter 9 WG1 shows that the chance of a pause hapenning by accident is only 5%. In IPCC parlance this translates to:
"It is very unlikely that CMIP5 models can explain the hiatus in warming observed since 1998".

95% : This refers to the statement in SPM: "It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST from 1951 to 2010. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period." However this is controversial as there is no actual description of the statistical analysis which led to this conclusion in chapter 10 of AR5. This is perhaps the most opaque chapter in the report. On what basis were the authors able to increase their confidence in the models from 90% to 95% from AR4 in view of the fact there has been no warming since AR4 ? Surely the confidence should if anything be less than in AR4. The political pressure on scientists to forever increase their “certainty” about man-made global warming is intense. They clearly succumbed to that pressure. Chapter 10 studiously avoided any discussion of the pause. Attempts now to explain the pause as due to natural variability - see for example Michael Mann's recent ariticle on realclimate - dig a bigger hole for them. See my take on this in IPPC Scientist's dilemma

1 Trillion tons: This refers to the maximum amount of carbon we can burn to avoid exceeding 2C of warming. It is based on the AR5 iconic graph - Figure 10 in the Summary for Policy Makers. Myles Allen appeared on the BBC with 10 lumps of coal on a table to explain how we had already burned 5 of them leaving just 5 left to burn if we want to avoid a catastrophe. It is a simple powerful message understandable by policy makers – but is it actually correct ?
Everyone knows that CO2 forcing goes as the logarithm of concentration DS = 5.3 ln(C/C0) so how can the temperature depend linearly on CO2 content. The answer of course is that can't DT = λ DS. So how come Myles Allen and co. managed to get a linear dependence? The answer is that they make a huge assumption that the carbon cycle will saturate in the future. Currently half of our CO2 emissions are absorbed by the natural world. There is an assumption in so-called Earth-System models that this will stop in the near future until practically all our emissions remain in the atmosphere. There is as yet no evidence whatsoever that this is hapenning. If saturation doesn't occur then we have over 2 trillion tons to go before reaching a 2C limit. see How robust is Fig 10 in AR5-SPM

Mar 4, 2015 at 9:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterClive Best

Daimon Walker: you appear to misunderstand the message from most of the people on this site – none of us doubt that the world has warmed since the Little Ice Age; most are actually glad of it. However, you are convinced that the warming is a result of the increase in CO2, stating that you think that the link has been proven. What most of us are saying is that no link has been shown, and, if there is one, then the effects are minimal; what rise there has been is fully in accord with natural variation. I, for one, would be interested to see what has convinced you that human-produced CO2 is such a significant factor. The topic of CO2 has been discussed in some depth on the “Understanding the role of CO2” discussion I started on the Discussion site, linked at the top of this page; I recommend that you have a read.

What rankles most of us is the empty belief that we can actually do anything to “mitigate” climate change, and the vast amounts of OUR money that the governments are pumping into the false ideology. If nothing else, take a look back in history; you will note that there is precious little benefit for society that has originate from “government”; most government exists for control of the population, usually not for its benefit. Almost ALL advancements in society and science have been from private sources, either individuals or industries; please do not expect present-day governments, self-absorbed and brain-dead as many appear to be, to change that situation – most of the changes proposed are NOT for the benefit of you or I, but most definitely are for those presently holding office, as well as their kin.

Returning to topic: I have yet to see this programme, but expect it is being recorded for me. Based on comments here, I will approach its viewing with trepidation, as I cannot afford another TV.

Mar 4, 2015 at 9:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

I think we're all struggling with the "scientific" bit, Richard.
And the point is that the BBC has obligations under its Charter which, as far as climate science is concerned, it is pointedly, deliberately and persistently ignoring.
The programme was not, by any stretch of anyone's imagination, an objective, balanced and unbiased view of climate science. It was what we had all here anticipated but hoped (against all the odds) that it might not be: another piece of BBC warmist propaganda.
So why not ask the relevant minister what he proposes to do about it?

Mar 4, 2015 at 9:28 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

RR
Did you read ATheoK's 12.11 comment?
You are simply trying to engage with a small weasel enjoying a free ride on the back of the woodpecker called ATTP.
Suggest: DNFTT

Mar 4, 2015 at 9:32 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Dear Dr Betts,

While others can - and hopefully will - answer for themselves, my penn'orth in response to you is that

- some MPs are far more sympathetic than others to asking "difficult" questions that might might be deemed to challenge or embarrass the government or civil service. Even if MPs are, by convention - I understand - rather than law, expected to ask questions on behalf of their constituents, there is no sanction, or appeal to higher authority, if they fail to do so. My own MP is a very loyal junior minister, and he has failed to ask questions on several topics on my behalf, always avoiding any rational explanation.

- MPs can, of course, ask questions on their own account, without reference to a constituent. If Doug Keenan knows sympathetic MPs (and/or peers, for that matter), so much the better; it saves us having to do our own research to find one.

- "going through Parliament" provides a prominent, public and well-archived platform for asking questions and - from time to time - obtaining meaningful answers in reply. Even the absence of a meaningful reply can be useful in demonstrating the reluctance of government to provide full and honest answers to straightforward questions.

- asking questions in Parliament about subjects (such as BBC impartiality, or Met Office integrity) which are very much the responsibility of Parliament is both right and proper, and is sometimes necessary because the public bodies concerned ignore requests for information or justification. Within this context it may be entirely appropriate to ask questions about individuals.

- it's not just Doug Keenan who is interested in these topics, and your private exchanges with him are no substitute for public discussion.

Mar 4, 2015 at 9:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterCassio

"What is the number one greenhouse gas? Do we need it? Can we get rid of it?"

Er, water vapour, yes, and no.

Next?

Mar 4, 2015 at 9:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterAndrew Duffin

@cassio


And of course the most obvious reason why Richard Betts is conflating to extremely different things:


Grijalva was/is demanding the email of individuals.


Parliament is, potentially, asking question about a something telecast by a publicly funded institution.

Again you guys do yourselves no favours.

Mar 4, 2015 at 10:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko

" see Moneyball for absolute and utterly
incontrovertible experimentally derived proof of this."

Not related but I was going to point out the huge amount of statistacal work and modelling that has gone into baseball. They have an interesting situation where the club controls the player for the first 5-6 years but wages are suppressed during that time. After that the free market kicks in (over $300 million dollars to Stanton this winter). Check out Fangraphs for analysis overload...

Not seen the program but the football model seems totally pointless (does it correctly account for Southampton this year??). Also it has nothing to do at all with computer modelling where you bake your assumptions into the code.

Mar 4, 2015 at 10:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

@ Tamsin

Two of the three numbers selected were perhaps the most controversial parts of AR5....

As a programme consultant, would you care to comment on Clive Best's summary of the 95% and 1 Trillion figures?

Richard Betts also (if you are still lurking). Thanks.

p.s. I also question the 0.85C figure, as I think UHI and the cleaner air acts in Europe and North America are likely responsible for about 0.3C of the warming, and I don't think there is any evidence of any significant warming in the southern hemisphere in the last 100 years.

Mar 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

Betts, here you are again failing to answer questions and ignoring the points people make.

You put two questions to DK: how does he table PQs and how many has he tabled. Read your post, then come back and tell us whether or not you were trying to imply impropriety.

Your response is that it is not necessary to go through parliament, that you have responded in the past and that this led to a "fair amount of discussion." Mighty groovy to see that you, a public servant, have deigned to engage with members of the public. Mighty groovy to see your concern for public resources, and that they might be wasted by what is after all only part of that pesky democratic process.

"So, that's all good, then."

Your whine finishes with the remark that the witch-hunt against RP Jnr was "unnecessarily intrusive and time-wasting". Don't remember you saying anything before. Betts, a disinterested observer might very well conclude that what upsets you is the idea that public servants should be subject to public scrutiny. Sounds reasonable to me.

You hold a senior position in the Met Office, but you call this broadcast a "scientific documentary"?

ROTFFLMFAO.

Mar 4, 2015 at 10:11 AM | Unregistered Commenterjolly farmer

Climate Change by Numbers another BBC arse covering exercise .The Beeb protecting its Broadcasting Monopoly and its License fee ,don't want to rock the boat with Westminster .What with a new government coming in especially when all three party leaders have public agreement to back Climate Change whatever.What with UKIP and SNP threatening all the main Party marginals and building international climate dissent and public apathy.

Sorry to go OT Bish but moving on.

but its wonderfully ironic they,re about to have a climate conference to discuss reducing the use of fossil fuels in a recession with the usual turmoil in the Middle East and tension in the Black Sea and with a glut of oil and gas and the price has hit rock bottom.
So when the Paris conference inevitability collapses into farce who will the BBC and Harrabin throw the blame at.

Putin i suppose he,s the current world pantomime villain at the moment.
So plenty of Siberian Gas contracts headed out to the Emerging Economies
but no Russian gas for NATO.

Mar 4, 2015 at 10:22 AM | Unregistered Commenterjamspid

'Richard Betts
I'm also wondering why he even thinks it is necessary to go through Parliament, with all the expense this would incur to the taxpayer / license fee payer?'

Because of the total failure of those that should have acted as gatekeepers in dealing with poor scientific pratice , either through self interest, nor laziness or because a desire to keep the 'towers ivory'
Playing three wise monkeys over the very poor behaviour seen in advocates for AGW could be a bring real trouble for all of science in the future has the public come to label everyone working in the area with the same label has those in 'the Team' and the MET who have but their own interest , both professional and idealogical, before values that should dominate the scientific process.
I don't expect you to step out of line given who signs your pay checks and their well published views on the subject , nor is it possible to ignore that 'the cause ' has brought many benefits to the MET , 97 million of them at the last count . However, that does not change the fact that its snake oil being forced unto people and so people are bond to say so and if the only way to do so is by other means , becasue of the failure of those that should have stopped its sell in the first place, so be it .

Mar 4, 2015 at 10:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

'Richard Betts
I'm also wondering why he even thinks it is necessary to go through Parliament, with all the expense this would incur to the taxpayer / license fee payer?'

Because of the total failure of those that should have acted as gatekeepers in dealing with poor scientific pratice , either through self interest, nor laziness or because a desire to keep the 'towers ivory'
Playing three wise monkeys over the very poor behaviour seen in advocates for AGW could be a bring real trouble for all of science in the future has the public come to label everyone working in the area with the same label has those in 'the Team' and the MET who have but their own interest , both professional and idealogical, before values that should dominate the scientific process.
I don't expect you to step out of line given who signs your pay checks and their well published views on the subject , nor is it possible to ignore that 'the cause ' has brought many benefits to the MET , 97 million of them at the last count . However, that does not change the fact that its snake oil being forced unto people and so people are bond to say so and if the only way to do so is by other means , becasue of the failure of those that should have stopped its sell in the first place, so be it .

Mar 4, 2015 at 10:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

Bish wrote:

Recitation of all these familiar arguments is not going to persuade anyone.

Quite so, Your Grace. Notwithstanding the oh-so-valiant efforts of the likes of Daimon what's-his-name's early in his game slip o' the keyboard:

I am really intrigued by naysayers. I used to be one. I went on for years banging on about how it is all hype and "not real". I then decided to go and look for myself.

[…]
What if the minority are right and we have a catastrophe on our hands?

A minority on the impending catastrophe front?! Perish the thought, eh?! Doesn't Daimon know that it's 97%?!

But, let's face facts, folks ... notwithstanding the above, Daimon did his oh-so-eloquently recycling best to divert the discussion to what - in essence - amounts to his (however-found) faith in the "precautionary principle".

Many, many posts later, it was quite obvious that Daimon's efforts were far from washing (or convincing). So (as jolly farmer had perceptively noted above), enter Betts with one of his (comparatively rare but) far-too-typical diversionary and picayune discourses. Quelle surprise eh?!

Mar 4, 2015 at 11:24 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

jolly farmer

(Although I find you far from 'jolly')

As people here will know, I'm an advocate of openness and public accountability. But things should be proportionate - I was one of the first to object to the investigation of Pielke etc e.g.. this twitter exchange and this one. (There are others if you care check - you might want to look outside of your own echo chambers for a change!!).

But anyway, addressing me by my surname is a clear sign of a lack of willingness for a respectful discussion, so I'll say goodbye to you.

Mar 4, 2015 at 11:39 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

Dr Betts, given your commendable concern over the cost to the taxpayer/licence fee payer, I would like to hear why you haven't expressed concerns at the BBC's waste of taxpayer/licence fee payer's money in producing the blatant propaganda exemplified by Climate Change By Numbers? A number of extremely pointed and well-founded comments have been made in this thread about the misleading nature of that programme yet your contribution amounts to trying to denigrate and suppress those seeking to raise the issue through PQs. I would give your position more credence if you were to make some effort to counter the criticisms of the programme that have been raised here.

Mar 4, 2015 at 11:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterTC

Oh and here's Hilary with the same old little digs and snipes again! Hilary - Josh told me you are a lovely person in real life, I'm sure he's right, but I really wish I could see that.

<sigh>

Mar 4, 2015 at 11:50 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

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>