Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Are BHers out to kill the BBC ?

Sorry. I put the link to IPCC AR5 fig 11.25 in a bracketed comment. So it didn't appear.

You can find the real graph here.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

May 1, 2016 at 5:18 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

I take it back. Putting you on television to argue against climate science would be a marvellous idea.
May 1, 2016 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Thanks for your confidence EM. I'll await the call. From my past experience of speaking before audiences of various sizes and compositions, I'm pretty confident I'll come across quite well, having got even those holding different views from mine to smile and to nod in agreement from time to time.

May 1, 2016 at 5:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

M Courtney

Could you make up you mind about models. You can simultaneously say they are invalid, while simultaneously arguing that the theory is invalid because something they predict has not, in your opinion, happened.

The CMIP5 models I linked are short term predictions which are directly comparable with present temperatures.
You are comp!aiming about models which do not start until 2020. How do you know whether they are right or wrong?

If the size of the trend is comparable with the size of the internal variation, you wait for a longer baseline.

You did look at Figure 2? Last time I looked the 2nd millennium CE was not part of the Jurassic.

May 1, 2016 at 8:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

M Courtney

The rate of warming in the first half of the 20th century is the same as the rate in the second.

That turns out not to be the case.

Check GISS..

The 5-year average temperature anomaly for 1900 was -0.18C. In 1950 it was -0.09C and in 2000 it was 0.53C.

That translates to a warming of 0.09C between 1900 and 1950, and 0.62C between 1950 and 2000.

May 1, 2016 at 8:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Models.
Models are incorrect (invalid) if they predict something that does not happen.
No contradiction there.

My complaint about your mocked up graph wasn't just that it pretended that the models matched reality in 2020 (when they can't yet - it's only 2016) but also that it was referenced as being legitimate research from the IPCC.
When it wasn't that graph.
You have been duped. It's fake.

Wisely you ought to spend time finding out who has fed you this false information.

May 1, 2016 at 8:59 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Martin A

I am not talking about your manner. I feel that your conspiracy theories would not go down well.

May 1, 2016 at 9:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Temperatures.
I showed you the graph. It demonstrated that I was right.

You have got widely different trends by not taking the warming periods. You've added in the cooling in the middle of the 20th century. This is an error.

CO2 is not predicted to cause cooling. Whatever caused the cooling period in the middle of the 20th century is either:
A) Not CO2 and so irrelevant - cut that period out of the comparison of trends like I did.
Or
B) Caused by CO2 and thus even AGW itself is wrong. But we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas so you can't claim CO2 cools the planet. If there were such a mechanism it would make any policy relating to emissions unworkable.

The two warming periods (when the warming factors dominate - which may be CO2) have the same trend.

Sorry mate. You cannot change the Laws of Physics.
Either claim CO2 causes warming and compare the warming periods. Or claim CO2 doesn't cause warming and compare periods including the cooling.

As an aside, what do you think overwhelmed the effects of GHGs in the middle of the 20th century?
You've started this conversation with the assertion that if one can't explain everything you should not be listened to (on the BBC) so I assume you know what that was and why it stopped.
Please tell me. I am ignorant of that and quite curious.

May 1, 2016 at 9:09 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Martin A

I am not talking about your manner. I feel that your conspiracy theories would not go down well.
May 1, 2016 at 9:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM "conspiracy" is your word not mine. As so often you imagine things (in this case you imagine what you think I might have said) and you present it as reality.

Groupthink is quite sufficient to explain climate science's search for anything that supports "the consensus" and makes is a career-threathening move (either for a scientist or for an editor) to publish anything that sheds the slightest doubt).

You yourself are a shining example of somebody who has been absorbed in this groupthink.

"conspiracy theory" is something dreamed up by Stephan Lewandowsky - nothing to do with reality. If you believe tat, you'll (as we already know) beleive anything that you are told to by the Priesthood.

May 2, 2016 at 7:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

What's this thread supposed to be about ?

This discussion seems to be heading to the tedious rabbit hole of discussing "radiative forcing"
...Which is a pattern I see on some other skeptical blogs where wamists turnup and take the discussion that way as if they were paid by the hour to disrupt ..and don't actually really care about what they are supposed to be discussing.

May 2, 2016 at 2:34 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

I had some points about the BBC reporting etc.

yes there some things which are truths
eg at Hillborough Liverpool fans were vile sd the Sun portrays or they weren't

eg 2 scientific truths = science ..ie rules which produce universal predictable outcomes
..Note that is way way different to "Scientists say"..that we hear in so many media reports

"scientists say" is NOT science ! It is just saying "Some guys say" it's just opinion , it might be right it might be wrong , but makes no difference WHO gives that opinion.

May 2, 2016 at 2:38 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

OK lets imagine the BBC sending its young boy reporter out to the 'shops' to get the news.

First Call : South Yorkshire Polices factory shop where they manufacture their own truths about the Hillsborough Stadium disaster etc..

In our reporter goes - And observes the Sun reporter in deep with the staff
.."great will, have that, we'll have that ...and I'll be back for some phone hacking stuff later" flashes some cash.

..There's also the reporter from the Sheffield Star who is trying to examine all the stock ,,saying "look at the stitching on that, looks like it's coming apart" ..as the police salesman try to usher him out.

May 2, 2016 at 2:47 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

So how that apply to Climate/Green Truth shopping ?

Our reporter steps out and sees valleys and valleys full of factories producing scientific information..too complex.
Ah but what's this in front ? We've got the Royal Society Megamart with it's famous logo high about the window
Nullus in Verba (what's that mean ?)
As soon as our young reporter steps in he's surrounded by slimey sales staff saying "Oh sir, you can trust us we've got the science, science to suit you sir , suits your sir."

He steps outside again and he notices other shops there is the big bright shiny Greenpeace Truth Warehouse, with its ever so attractive window displays and he doesn't even have to go inside there are pretty Greenpeace girls outside the doors handing out Free samples .: "pre-written press releases sir, you won't have to do much work"
he likes this he thinks these people are cool

but he looks over there and he thinks maybe there is another shop ..but he can't see for young beardy youths with banners he cranes his neck and behind them he can see it's the Heartland NIPCC Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change a tiny market stall compared to the other slick megamarts..
The youths won't let him go anywhere near it .."You go there mate there will be consequences , you'll be disowned by the cool people for life... You can go somewhere else instead the IPCC, it's not near here but we can give you free tickets to it's exotic location.

May 2, 2016 at 3:03 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Our reporter says "Actually I came to buy truths"
The Greenpeace guy says "Yes you stick with us Greenpeace, Royal scientific societies, IPCC, "

Our reporter clarifies "Actually I came to buy truths about FRACKING"
The Greenpeace guy says "ah, Yes you stick with us Greenpeace, stay away from those science societies,. Fracking is the tool of the devil and anyone who says it's not cataclysmic is a big oil shill."
.... "you shouldn't be listening to scientists like Averil Macdonald, except you should be listening to scientists from sociology and psychology"

May 2, 2016 at 3:18 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

So that's how we end up with crazy things on the BBC
When it's climate it's all Greepeace written stuff saying the IPCC science says this ..you've got to go with sacred science ..and keeping off men from the street

Yet when it comes to fracking there is no sign of respect for science ..and every news item has to have the Greenpeaceman on the street view as well.

May 2, 2016 at 3:22 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Oh and there was another thing about the big bright shiny Greenpeace Truth Warehouse it's logo is below the name
"The place of magical thinking"
It's sales literature is full of stories of imminent catastrophe and on the other side it explains all we need is to make some simple little steps : a few solar panels, windfarms, electric cars ..and the world will be magically good.
There is another sign above the entrace door ..It says "No real world maths allowed here"

May 2, 2016 at 3:26 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

A report today explains how most media outside the BBC also carry a similar if toned down message
Massively funded climate PR wholesalers keep them spoonfed

: Like ICN Inside Climate News

Have you ever wondered how the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel and your local media always seem to present similar one-sided stories on climate change, fossil fuels, renewable energy and other environmental issues? How their assertions become “common knowledge,” like the following?
WUWT Inside climate propaganda

May 2, 2016 at 3:30 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Stewgreen. If you make your reporter from the BBC, it would seem like I said something like your Royal Society megamart story before and was informed it was rubbish. All you need to do to complete OUR story is for the reporter to shop only in the megamarts and never go near sceptical barrow stalls. The reporter believes the stalls have nothing of value and this belief is encouraged by the megamart shills.

There, we are in complete agreement. However perhaps not, you want to blame the reporter rather than the antics of the megamarts.

May 2, 2016 at 3:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

EM, in science showing the hypothesis fails does not require offering an alternative that is acceptable to those whose hypothesis fails.

May 2, 2016 at 4:02 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

stewgreen

This discussion seems to be heading to the tedious rabbit hole of discussing "radiative forcing"

Fair point.
It arose because Entropic Man argued that there was nothing worth reporting by the BBC from the Sceptic view of the science. Our discussion led to four links from him;
-Two of which turned out to agree with me, not him.
-One of which was faked - he had been duped.
-And the last was completely irrelevant.

What did this have to do with the BBC?
It showed that the argument that the BBC needs to exclude the sceptic side of the debate... is false.

May 2, 2016 at 7:22 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

M Courtney 7:22 it also says a bit about EM and his sources of information. It does not say much for the BBC, which is a pity, because I would like the BBC to restore it's own credibility.

May 2, 2016 at 10:03 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The whole point is a good reporter examines personally the stitches in the goods sold be the "truth wholesalers" like the Sheffield Star reporter did, and the Sun reporter didn't.

@AK said "you want to blame the reporter rather than the antics of the megamarts."
Yep the reporter should be able to sift thru bad data, not just "trust people" (Nullus in Verba)

So @AK that is the difference in your Royal Society megamart idea, I'm saying the BBC guys examines the stitches and actually inspects the factories like the one that "produces 97% memes" , or "fracking is evil memes"On some issues say MMR vaccines it is entirely possible for the reporter to go back to the "factory" ie the original papers.

The reporter always has the option of bringing in both the RS salesman and a skeptical scientist like Bob Carter and put them on air against each other. The public would benefit from this.
- The problem is that the "true believer" side refuse such invitation..whilst at the same time saying skeptics should be banned.
..So what happens is that the public slowly get to hear skeptical voices elsewhere ..and become disenchanted with the BBC as they think "well why didn't the BBC show me these ideas before ?"

------------
Big Consequences of BBC failure of journalism :
....Maybe fracking would have already begun 2 years ago, with the consequences of #1 lowering CO2 and #2 Shale tax dollars pouring into the government.

May 3, 2016 at 9:35 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

EM, in science showing the hypothesis fails does not require offering an alternative that is acceptable to those whose hypothesis fails.
May 2, 2016 at 4:02 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

hunter - this is one of EM's most serious blind spots. He has repeated, many times, in various forms, his belief that a faulty hypothesis remains valid until replaced by something better. It explains why he seems to believe that current "climate science" has to be taken as fact unless somebody comes up with a new and improved version (or paradigm as he has recently taken to saying). Or conversely, he apparently thinks that the fact that nobody has come up with an improved "climate science" somehow validates what we have at present.

The idea of saying "we simply don't know - it is something we do not yet understand" is evidently something that he cannot come to terms with. Yet strangely, he does not seem to tire of lecturing anybody and everybody on the basic principles of how science works.

May 3, 2016 at 10:27 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Stewgreen. This will probably be my last post here, too busy elsewhere.

To continue our fairy story. Our poor little BBC reporter fails to investigate the sceptic stall because he is told that they sell faulty goods. But what's this? There's a shareholders' revolt at the Royal Society megamart and it's under new management. Our intrepid reporter is given a scoop and visits the sceptics stall where she learns about the fragility of goods from the IPCC and Greenpiece megastores. All lived happily ever after, except for the other megastores who conduct firesales. Mass layoffs.

And the moral of the story is?

The end

May 3, 2016 at 1:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

But what if they reform the other way ?
Just when you think things can't get worse. etc.

May 3, 2016 at 1:59 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

The BBC journos ..do act admirably in ,many other fields ..weighing boith sides, and truth seeking.

May 3, 2016 at 2:00 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen