Climate unit releases virtually all remaining data

BBC reports that the UEA has decided not to appeal the ICO decision and have released data in some cases even against the wishes of the originators.

(Makes one wonder when they will stop trying to shield the remaining evidence held by the ICCER?)

The Convoy of no confidence is amassing towards Canberra
Something beautiful is unfolding. From all over Australia, people whose businesses and jobs are being driven into the ground by spectacular government mismanagement are gathering to drive from the corners of the continent to converge on Canberra to demand an election.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/the-convoy-of-no-confidence-is-amassing-towards-canberra/#comments

8 separate convoys from every corner of Australia ... spectacular and catching the imagination like nothing else.

Looks like the Rossi & Focardi E-Cat 'cold fusion' black box is performing as expected ;-)

Ah well, back to the drawing board!

And Gen IV IFR research.

I'm not aware of any confusion about Richard Betts, BBD.
He is a Met office scientist and IPCC author. He has chosen to put his head above the parapet and communicate directly on what is arguably the most consistently open-minded and (from what I see posted) the best informed sceptical blog in the UK. With which we are or should be extremely pleased.
Perhaps other members of the climate science community might at some stage follow his example because we then have a chance to prove that we are not the knuckle-dragging anti-science neanderthals that we are portrayed as.
(And we might get a response to my perennial plea of "show me the real-world evidence"!)
But that is no excuse to soft-pedal. Richard has a point of view with which we disagree to a greater or less extent. There will be no sensible dialogue if we pussy-foot around.

Lots of confusion about Richard Betts for some mystifying reason.

He's a working scientist at the sharp end of things and an invaluable source of information. And its bloody good of him to comment regularly at BH. More use that 1000 of me would ever be.

Let's accord the man some professional respect, listen to what he says, and perhaps he will keep dropping in. Which at least IMHO would be a Good Thing.

Wow:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/27/cyclomania/

I have a scientific questioni for you Richard, something that I've pondered for a long time. It's this:

Global warming, all agree, will/has led to more moisture in the atmosphere, which wil mean more precipitation. Again agreed by all. So what explanation is there for glaciers shrinking above 8000 feet? where, generally speaking the temperatures never rise above zero. (I knoww about ablation, but ablationn only occurs if there is no precipitation, so what`s happened to the precipitation if, as we are led to believe by the IPCC the Himalayan glaciers are on course to disappear by 2350?

Ecclesiastical Uncle

Thanks. You're right, my work does get used to inform policy - my opinions on the policy itself are not sought or given (not my job) but the work is policy-relevant. Indeed the primary purpose of the Met Office Hadley Centre is to provide objective, policy-relevant (but not policy-prescriptive) scientific advice.

If there are any issues with how the science is communicated or interpreted by others then yes it is part of my role to be prepared to say so to the person in question (or any intermediaries involved). Of course, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss specific details of such things, should this ever happen.

From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

Richard Betts

I understand your preference to stick to scientific matters and suppose that when you wrote that you were referring to discussions in this and other blogs and the like I doubt, however, that your job will have always allowed you to indulge the preference and that from time to time your work has been used in the formulation of policy.

Accordingly, what should you do if you see (ministerial) policy makers misrepresenting your results/conclusions (or those of others) by neglecting uncertainties, removing caveats, selecting one of a range of results or otherwise falsely misquoting or misusing the work?

Has it ever happened to you? What did you do? If nothing, rleuctantly? Why?

Thanks for your messages appreciating my input here!

Geronimo: just FYI I don't work for WWF, I work for the Met Office. Yes, the chairman of our board is Robert Napier who is (or maybe was, I'm not sure) senior in WWF, but he has absolutely no say whatsoever about my work. Don't worry, I don't regard my presence here as career-threatening, I am free to express my opinion as long as I don't bring my employer into disrepute! (And anyway I am expressing my own opinions, not those of the Met Office, nor the IPCC for that matter.)

I'm quote happy to be "probed" as Brownedoff puts it, although as I say I prefer to stick to scientific issues and organisational aspects if I know the answer. I generally prefer to steer clear of commenting on policy - not my role, and hopefully that makes it easier to stick to a scientifically objective discussion (well I live in hope anyway!)

BTW my response to the utterly stupid article on Think Progress, reposted on Grist, was on the Grist comments - but those of you on Twitter might also like to see my extensive exchange with David Roberts (who runs Grist). I think he was completely wrong to re-post the article and I said so, and we had quite an extensive argument about it. You may be particularly interested in the part when we get on to my suggestion that "denier" is an unnecessarily inflammatory term...

I am as unimpressed with Grist as I am with Climate Progress.

My twitter id is @richardabetts and David Roberts is @drgrist.