Green Sand

Many thanks.

Riveting.

Interesting post at WUWT reporting a paper by Spencer & Braswell.
The Team certainly won't like this one and the greenies will probably like it even less. Wait for the fireworks!

Take an hour out and listen to Vaclav Klaus telling why he is fearful of the "GW doctrine". Well worth the time.

Speech to the National Press Club of Australia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idKceFvO7AM&feature=player_embedded

Again, I ask, is this OK?

If you choose to respond, if possible, (to avoid the previous malarky), can you just say yes or no.

No its not OK, it assumes that there is no doubt so any conflicting evidence is dismissed.

A friend of mine is on that Met Office statement, and no they hadn't read any of the emails...
imho, there to this day seems to be a very insular mindset amongst the climate scientists, with 1 or 2 exceptions.. ;)

I might ask, when climate scientists use the term 'sceptics' amongst themselves, is it in a derogatory manner, or as people that may have some genuine input?

Sorry, accidently put WG2 instead of WG1

Jul 26, 2011 at 9:31 AM | Barry Woods

I hardly think Richard Betts is responisible for the whole of the IPCC failings!!!

Who said he was?

Jul 26, 2011 at 10:01 AM | geronimo

Barry, quite agree. ..... If, as he says he's here to engage, and I believe him, thence shouldn't be hectored.

I do not think you mean "hectored" - the ordinary meaning of that word is either "bullied" or "intimidated".

RB is a very senior scientist at the Met Office, indeed the Head of the Climate Impacts strategic area and also a Lead Author on AR4 and AR5. Heads of areas, by definition, cannot be bullied or intimidated.

I think if a word has to be plucked from the lexicon to characterise RB's experience over the past weeks on BH, it would be "probed".

In any case, the original message which started this off was not directed at any anyone in particular. RB just dived in, answered my question with a "yes" but then went on to set up deflector topics which were picked up by others.

So, only one person (RB - yes) has answered my question and 48 hours later I am still waiting for someone else to say yes or no.

However, I can give an update as a result of obtaining some additional information from RB.

Originally I said that there were 3 CLAs, 13 LAs and 3 REs (total 19) working in AR5 WG1 who had signed the Met Office 2009 Statement and therefore, along with the other 1,700 signatories, could reasonably be described as having "strongly-held views".

After all they signed this document: (my bold)

We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities.

..... we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".

I can now report that there are actually 3 CLAs, 14 LAs and 4 REs (total 21) working in AR5 WG2 who had signed the Met Office 2009 Statement.

Again, I ask, is this OK?

If you choose to respond, if possible, (to avoid the previous malarky), can you just say yes or no.

Note, I already have RB's "yes".

It seems an environmental activist submitted bids in a drilling auction with the intention of disrupting the bidding process. So why does the heading refer to him as a Climate Activist?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/26/climate-activist-tim-dechristopher

It is pent-up frustration, Barry, and it's really hardly surprising.
I'm delighted Richard Betts has decided to "break cover" and come across to talk to us and I wish a few more would. I would particularly like Nurse, Jones (S) and Cox to enter into what is these days known as "meaningful dialogue" because I don't think they have a clue as to who we are, what we actually think, and at bottom why we are so frustrated at
a- the unwillingness of climate scientists (i) to explain their reasoning and (ii) to listen to any argument or idea or alternative hypothesis that serves to contradict or even slightly amend their own, and
b- their own inability to engage with sceptics or to understand why we claim they also should be more sceptical than they are.
I still become a danger to the furniture when I remember Nurse's equating of climate change sceptics with those who oppose GM crops. If he did not know that the white-suited idiots who trash these trials are the very same warmists and eco-fascists (sorry, Richard) that we are arguing against then he has very little credibility and arguably has no business to be holding down a senior position with the Royal Society.
There is an alternative, of course, but that way lies conspiracy theory. and I'd really rather not go down that road until I'm left with no choice. :-)

Barry, quite agree. Richard has come to the blog to engage, just as Judy used to engage on ClimateAudit. If, as he says he's here to engage, and I believe him, thence shouldn't be hectored. Willis Eschenbach was verging on being rude when she engaged on WUWT and that's counterproductive. Although she took it well.