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

Unthreaded

If I were Dr Pope I would simply move my thermometer a couple of feet. I can easily get the temperature to change by more than 0.3C by doing that.
Actually when I think about it I'm not sure that my thermometers are accurate to 0.3C. I have two side by side at the moment (I'm trying to calibrate one) and they are never within 0.5 of each other. (Which of course means I never know which one is right. I wonder of the Met Office has the same problem.)
Why are we continuing to fall for this nonsense? I doubt there is anything in the world that could start to tell the difference between 14.5C and 14.8C.
Or that in a sane world would care.

Mar 6, 2013 at 11:26 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

"there she is without a blush telling everyone that the warming would increase by 0.3C between 2004 and 2014"

Exactly geronimo. It was this sort of nonsense that led directly to the Climate Change Act in 2008. Dr Pope needs to explain how she got this so hopelessly wrong, and why we should ever believe another word she says.
Mar 6, 2013 at 10:41 AM | Unregistered Commenter Roger Longstaff

As a tax payer who has seen my energy bills significantly increase (in part due to 4 of the last 5 winters being colder than average, and the summers being far from 'warm'), and some of the finest landscapes in Scotland being carpeted with pointless windmills, I will second that.

Mar 6, 2013 at 11:19 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

"there she is without a blush telling everyone that the warming would increase by 0.3C between 2004 and 2014"

Exactly geronimo. It was this sort of nonsense that led directly to the Climate Change Act in 2008. Dr Pope needs to explain how she got this so hopelessly wrong, and why we should ever believe another word she says.

Mar 6, 2013 at 10:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Longstaff

Mar 5, 2013 at 9:52 PM | Roger Longstaff

Interesting link Roger, there she is without a blush telling everyone that the warming would increase by 0.3C between 2004 and 2014. Now I'm not one to tempt fate by scoffing at her, but it seems pretty unlikely that we'll get an increase in global temperatures of 0.3C in the nest ten months or so.
Do they take a "lack of embarrassment" pill every morning after breakfast? If anything is going to bring Climate Scientists into disrepute it's this sort of tosh. 1C will cause ocean acidification destroying corals so let's move our wealth to managing disasters based on information from people who clearly have no clue what they're talking about?

Mar 6, 2013 at 10:30 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

In her previous roles, Vicky Pope could, behind closed doors, have helped derail the Climate Change Act. She could have helped the public put the febrile agitations of 'environmentalists' about climate into perspective. She could have helped distance the Met Office from the excesses of the IPCC. As far as I know, she attempted none of these things. Appearing on the credits for this shoddy site - https://realitydrop.org/#about -is but one indication of the Met Office's standing in the world of climate alarmists

It would not nearly make up for these lost opportunities, but at least now she has the chance of removing the new Met Office from the list of things I resent paying taxes for.

Mar 6, 2013 at 10:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

Richard Betts:

"I wonder what "Integration and Growth" means.


It means helping to grow additional sources of revenue for the Met Office. As a government Trading Fund, we are required to increase the value for money to the UK taxpayer by becoming less reliant on government funding."

Yes Richard, but what is she integrating? Does that mean that when you have a problem integrating she provides the resources to solve it. And is there a Director of Differentiation and Growth I wonder?

Mar 6, 2013 at 9:57 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Mar 5, 2013 at 11:28 PM | Martin A

I wonder what "Integration and Growth" means.

It means helping to grow additional sources of revenue for the Met Office. As a government Trading Fund, we are required to increase the value for money to the UK taxpayer by becoming less reliant on government funding. That's why we have a commercial area, which works directly for the private sector, providing advice on weather and climate so business and industry can increase their own efficiencies and profits. (eg: by increasing their resilience).

Mar 6, 2013 at 9:35 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

Anyone seen this old BBC page "compiled with advice from Fred Singer and Gavin Schmit")?
Climate scepticism: The top 10

It is badly in need of an update, but nether-the-less is still linked to by Education Scotland as an educational resource for pupils. http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/weatherandclimatechange/climatechange/index.asp. I suppose any old propaganda and misinformation will do: e.g.

1. warming since 1979 is unequivocal, andUHI is negligible (and adjusted for!),
2. lack of warming since 1997 is due to El Nino & cherry-picking
3. evidence for the MWP is patchy at best
4. models are tested and validated against all sorts of data
5. Lower levels of the troposphere are warming; but measuring the exact rate has been an uncertain process

and so on. Got to go, school run.

Mar 6, 2013 at 8:49 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/9910279/The-green-energy-mirage-will-cost-the-earth.html

In 1988, the year global warming made its entrance into politics, Margaret Thatcher declared that mankind had unwittingly been carrying out a massive experiment with the planet, in which the burning of fossil fuels would produce greenhouse gases, leading to higher global temperatures. The results of this experiment remain an open question. As Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, acknowledged last month, there has been a 17-year pause in the rise of average global temperatures.

Of more immediate consequence to British families is that the UK has embarked on perhaps the most aggressive political experiment attempted in peacetime – gradually outlawing the use of fossil fuels, which we have relied on since the Industrial Revolution, as our principal source of energy. The results are already evident. Two weeks ago, Alistair Buchanan, chief executive of Ofgem, warned of rising energy bills, and questioned whether Britain would be able to keep the lights on. When there is a glut of natural gas in the US and coal prices are plunging in Europe, this country faces a green energy crunch as it attempts to decarbonise its economy.

[ more ]

Mar 6, 2013 at 7:16 AM | Registered Commentermatthu

A.Scott at WUWT on dubious publication status of TWO Lewandowsky papers


...To review – the original Lewandowsky 2012 “Moon Landing” paper, which Lewandowsky, Cook et al, have claimed since July 2012, to be; peer reviewed accepted for publication by, and “in press” with, Psychological Science has not seen a one of those claims acknowledged or confirmed. The paper has not been published and no acknowledgement has been made by the journal of its acceptance.

And the same type questionable conduct and issues are arising on the follow on “Recursive” paper as well.

And all the while the authors of “Moon Landing still have failed/refused to provide the Supplemental Online documentation they claim contains the information necessary to verify and validate their work.

These are simple, honest, fair questions. Each and every one ignored.

Mar 6, 2013 at 5:13 AM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
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>