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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15108966

The BBC calmly explores another 'hockey stick' - obesity - but this time comes to the surprising conclusion that we maybe shouldn't trust such a small timespan of data.....

If only we could get them to apply the same logic to the satellite temperature record.

Sep 29, 2011 at 4:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Brownedoff,

Don't beat yourself up, there have been many posts for his attention from different bloggers myself included, I'm sure RB is just a little busy or taking a breather and will return as time permits.
When you start a discussion off it can be very time consuming and an emotional roller coaster ride if you assume responsibility for its control, which I suppose is a minor but warranted tribute to our host Andrew, I really don't know how he copes.

Sep 29, 2011 at 4:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

"I think it is a bit premature to single me out for the role of the sole assassin"

You assume a malign motive on my part, which isn't there. I only mentioned you in Unthreaded because your particular conversation spilled over here. If you think everyone is out to get you, then the world usually starts to looks that way. I agree with almost everything you say, so it's a shame I'm being set up as your adversary - it's not the content, it's the potential for detailed and repeated interrogation to be perceived as hectoring that I'm anxious about.

Yes, The Met Office has a LOT to answer for, and RB as its representative would do well not to repeat its pat effusive polemic here, where we're immune to such sleights of hand. But... I'd rather he be pinned on a very small pin here where we can take small jabs at him, than be browbeaten off the site, allowing both 'sides' to harden their poor image of the other further.

Sep 29, 2011 at 4:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Sep 29, 2011 at 2:14 PM | TheBigYinJames

it would be sad to lose Richard Betts as a contributor here. Just a thought.

Sep 29, 2011 at 2:40 PM | lapogus

BigyinJames - yes agree, it would be sad to lose Richard Betts as a contributor here.

I think it is a bit premature to single me out for the role of the sole assassin, that is, for me to be blamed in advance, in the event that RB pulls up sticks and disappears over the side.

However, may I suggest that you pop over to the discussion thread where you will find others, equally browned off, who are turning the screws even harder than I was. My stuff was bland compared to the probing which is now in progress.

My involvement was limited to arguing over the meaning of ordinary words in the English language which are littered about in Met Office, IAC and IPCC documents, but which seem to take on different meanings when employed by members of the profession of climate science.

If only members of the profession of climate science would provide a glossary or a dictionary, the better to help our understanding of the rules.

Perhaps, by joining in over there on the discussion thread you can convince/persuade RB, in advance, to stick around on BH for the long term, by providing counter arguments to some of the stuff that is being laid out at the moment on that discussion thread.

In this way, RB may see that there are contributors here on BH who are not irritating, awkward or adversarial, but supportive.

Just a thought.

Sep 29, 2011 at 3:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrownedoff

"In decades to come youngsters would be visiting the National Museum of Scotland to look at the devices developed to harness the power of the winds, waves and tides......" and how they destroyed a once-great nation.

Sep 29, 2011 at 3:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Longstaff

BigyinJames - yes agree, it would be sad to lose Richard Betts as a contributor here.

On a different note - now it is the turn of the New York Times to have a reality check on wind farms, or at least on one that has been consented in the mountains in the north-east of Vermont:

www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/opinion/the-not-so-green-mountains.html?_r=1

Sep 29, 2011 at 2:40 PM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

While I share BrownedOff's frustrations, especially on the ongoing stranglehold that the Team have on AR5, it would be sad to lose Richard Betts as a contributor here. Just a thought.

Sep 29, 2011 at 2:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Sorry the link to Anthony's page is:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/28/video-analysis-and-scene-replication-suggests-that-al-gores-climate-reality-project-fabricated-their-climate-101-video-simple-experiment/

I also came across this write up of a similar experiment by Dr. Heinz Hug at:

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

which suggests CO2's effect is only 1/80th of what is claimed by IPCC. But not sure if Hug used sealed or vented jars...

Sep 29, 2011 at 10:55 AM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

I came across this video by Carl Brehmer over at Anthony's page [Greenhouse In A Bottle-Reconsidered] on Al Gore's faked CO2 in a bottle experiment:

http://myweb.cableone.net/carlallen/Site/Greenhouse%20In%20A%20Bottle-Reconsidered.html

attempt at link: Greenhouse In A Bottle-Reconsidered

Carl suggests that atmospheric scientists appear to have forgotten a relatively simple but key factor which explains the real reason why bottles containing CO2 rather than just air warm up more when placed beside an IR lamp. It would appear that CO2's effect is very minor indeed, and that it is good old gravity which creates the atmospheric pressure which keeps the planet's average sea level temperatures at 15C, not the greenhouse effect. I have seen this argument before (usually in the context of Venus), but not so clearly and thoroughly explained. It all seems too incredible that the CO2 AGW proponents have missed this, and I am at a loss, are our supposedly clever and logical scientists really that stupid? In some ways I hope not. Please, someone debunk Carl's video and assure me that CO2 is responsible for at least a little warming.

Sep 29, 2011 at 10:52 AM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100012267/eurozones-dangerous-lurch-towards-protectionism/

What's so odd about this is that Barroso's own research has shown that the tax would cost far more in lost growth than it is ever likely to raise in revenues.

But economic sanity is not what this is about, is it. No, it's about extending the Commission's reach and attempting to divert attention from the eurozone's wider problems.

Hmm anyone see parallels with EU controlling CO2 emissions.

Sep 29, 2011 at 10:36 AM | Unregistered Commenterbreath of fresh

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>