"The case for anthropogenic global warming was, as far as I can understand, slightly more convincing a decade ago than it is today, with global temperatures having recently dropped."
Hmmmm, a citation would be useful Dan. So by Mr Hannan's reckoning the case for anthropogenic global warming is made up by the sole factor of whether temperatures are rising or falling. It's a very noisy background , as any GMST graphic will prove. Mr Hannan will have to change his mind every time the line changes direction. If he's being honest.
Hi Hengist, it seems to me that MEP Daniel Hannan is taking the surprisingly sensible position (unusual for a politician) of questioning the claims being made by disciples of the human-made global climate change doctrine. It also seems that the good people of SE England have a sensible attitude towards the UN’s politically-motivated scam called Catastrophic AGW.
ReplyDeleteThere has been a lot of debate on the blogosphere about whether those claims about global mean temperature trends are valid. Have you read about the questionable data from USA (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26758) New Zealand (http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/09/temperature-adjustments-science-or-art/), Australia (http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/bom-giss-have-record-setting-bugs-affecting-a-million-square-miles/), China, Russia?
Try this site for more information http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm.
Also, have a look at the UK’s Hadley Centre graph (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/) where you should notice the trend over the past 12 years or so, showing (to the extent that the statistical manipulations can be trusted) the clear change from rising to falling temperatures as more recent global mean temperature reconstructions take greater precedence than the claimed rising temperatures during the previous decade.
I see that you insist on showing Hansen’s discredited “hockey stick” on your blog, despite the fact that expert statisticians have convincingly shown that the statistical manipulations that Hansen used to produce his desired shape were totally inappropriate and would have made random numbers produce the same shape. Come off it!
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hengist, I've just tried to post this on your The BBC Climate Files blog “CRU hack: Skeptics wrote emails to suit BBC news programme!” thread but nothing appeared.
ReplyDeleteWho are you trying to kid about those Climategate "enquiries". They were nothing but white-washes. Have as look at my series of articles “CAN THERE BE AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF IPCC?” on the subject at Global Political Shernanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/). While your at it have a look at the three more recent articles.
Ref. your comment on science student Kate's blog "About" thread (http://climatesight.org/about/#comment-4935), I see that she still insists on deleting submissions from sceptics like me. She’s another disciple of the Catastrophic AGW doctrine who shies away from open discussion on her blog. I trust that you are prepared to enter into open debate with the likes of me.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Since you are not a scientist perhaps you should pay a little more attention to what sceptics say instead of simply accepting what the disciples of Catastrophic AGW doctrine tell you. The sceptics who responded to your article “Home Westminster Unions Media Activism
ReplyDeleteHow the BBC manufactures ignorance on climate change” (http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/09/11/how-the-bbc-manufactures-ignorance-on-climate-change/) said some very sensible things that are worth your serious consideration.
As one “Flowerpower” said to you on 13th July 11:33 (http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/07/13/does-the-bbc-have-a-hidden-agenda-on-climate-change/) “If anything, climate sceptics got a raw deal from the BBC between 2006 and last year’s Climategate scandal. Since November there’s been a tilt in the sceptical direction but no-where near equal treatment with the AGW position”.
As for your response to “Flowerpower” at 14:08 “I suggest it is evidence that the public is being misled” I don’t expect that you give any support to the opinion of many that the UN’s IPCC and political/environmentalist/power-hungry supporters have been trying very very hard to mislead the public through their propaganda about Catastrophic AGW?
Maybe you prefer the words of scientists, so here is what Dr. Phil Bratby had to say on 11th Sep at 21:52 (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/9/11/more-discussion-of-me.html) “What is the Liberal Conspiracy blog and who is Hengist McStone? His article reveals that he certainly seems a bit ignorant of climate science. "‘Hengist McStone’ runs a blog monitoring the BBC’s ignorant reporting of climate matters. If you spot anything, get in touch". He must have a full-time job monitoring the BBC's ignorant reporting of climate matters. As he is patently ignorant of climate matters himself, how would he know which of the BBC's reports are also ignorant?”
There are plenty more choice comments about you on that Andrew Montford thread. I don’t suppose you have read his excellent exposé “The Hockey Stick Delusion”. Get someone to buy you a copy for Xmas and have a good read of it. You may learn something about Michael Mann’s “tricky” statistical manipulations of proxy and measurement temperature data.
That brings us nicely back to the Climategate whitewash enquiries.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Pete, sorry,don't know why the comment form didnt work for you on BBC Climate files, must try and fix it. I'm not trying to kid anyone about those Climategate "enquiries". I've referred to them, is that a problem? When you say "They were nothing but white-washes" is that a refutation to something you see here? If not try and stay on topic.
ReplyDeleteFlowerpower deliciously quoted a survey that I had already complained about to the BBC. If you follow my link http://bbcantigreenbias.blogspot.com/2010/03/bbc-poll-shows-bbc-biased.html you can read the complaint. FYI the BBC have not replied to that one so I think that's a point to me. I can hardly be expected to accept Flowerpower's spin quoting the BBC's dodgy survey
at me whilst the BBC cannot defend said survey against my complaints. Furthermore does a public opinion poll really shed any light on the matter? 97.6% of publishing climatologists support AGW , that's a far higher majority than anything on the BBC poll and those are the eggheads who ought to know.
Anyhow thanks for your comments Pete, what are your qualifications in climate science btw?
Pete, you say "Since you are not a scientist perhaps you should pay a little more attention to what sceptics say"
ReplyDeleteActually I do. Andrew Montford has 2 posts dedicated to him now and there are more to come. Dinglepole's propagandising has not gone unnoticed and there's a post to your activist namesake Matt Ridley. Considering they enjoy the support of less than 1 in 40 publishing climate scientists the views of climate skeptics/deniers are amply represented on these webpages. Thanks for your concern Pete, but I think the record suggests I spend far too much time looking at the pseudoscience of so-called 'climate skeptics' than is healthy.
Just a word on posts going missing.
ReplyDeleteSomeone commenting on my own blog had a similar experience. There even seemed to be a suggestion that there was something untoward happening - censorship perhaps?
But I have since found the missing posts in the blogs spam filter - not sure what words or phase triggers to conclude a post is spam but some thing similar may have happened here.