Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread

[False]

I love reading this thread. Makes me feel better about myself if I ever do anything exceptionally stupid. Cheers Cal.

10/10 would lol again

[Slartibartfast]

Whatever the situation with the causes of climate change, an independent, low carbon and decentralised power generation system is a good thing. More competition, lower pollutants in the local environment and far more resilient to attacks, malfunctions and the cost of fuel.

Renewable energy is better than fossil fuel energy for a host of reasons, the reduction in CO2 emissions is a bonus at worst. (The link between CO2 and global climate is irrefutable, of course, as is the quantity of our emissions and the warming we've experienced in the last century being faster than at any other point in recorded or geological history - but maybe that's besides the point?)

[Cal]

CERN 'gags' physicists in cosmic ray climate experiment

What do these results mean? Not allowed to tell you

By Andrew Orlowski
Posted in Science, 18th July 2011 12:01 GMT

The chief of the world's leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva has prohibited scientists from drawing conclusions from a major experiment. The CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets") experiment examines the role that energetic particles from deep space play in cloud formation. CLOUD uses CERN's proton synchrotron to examine nucleation.

CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told Welt Online that the scientists should refrain from drawing conclusions from the latest experiment. "I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them," reports veteran science editor Nigel Calder on his blog. Why? Because, Heuer says, "That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters."

The unusual "gagging order" could have been issued because the results of CLOUD are really, really boring, muses Calder. Or, it could be that the experiment invites a politically unacceptable hypothesis on climate. The CLOUD experiment builds on earlier experiments by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, who demonstrated that cosmic rays provide a seed for clouds. Tiny changes in the earth's cloud cover could account for variations in temperature of several degrees. The amount of Ultra Fine Condensation Nuclei (UFCN) material depends on the quantity of the background drizzle of rays, which varies depending on the strength of the sun's magnetic field and the strength of the Earth's magnetic field.

But how much? Speaking at a private event attended by El Reg earlier this year, Svensmark, who has nothing to do with CLOUD, wouldn't be drawn. He said he thought it was one of four significant factors: man-made factors, volcanoes, a "regime shift" in the mid-'70s, and cosmic rays. The quantity of cosmic rays therefore has an influence on climate, but this isn't factored into the IPCC's "consensus" science at all.

According to Calder:

"CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It's OK to enter 'the highly political arena of the climate change debate' provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark's heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation."

Let's hope he's been misquoted. The precedents aren't happy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18 ... c_ray_gag/

[Fatal Exception]

This is the same CERN who claimed to have created a perpetual motion device which then didn't work when they wanted to show it off to the world.

[Cal]

Climate change sceptics should get less BBC coverage and be challenged 'more vigorously', says report on science output

Broadcasters to give less airtime to critics of majority view

Climate change sceptics will get less of a hearing on the BBC because they are at odds with the majority view among scientists, a report reveals. The corporation’s governing body is set to change the way the BBC covers the issue by urging it to focus less on those who disagree with the majority ‘consensus’. The BBC Trust report, out today, is in part based on an independent review of the broadcaster’s coverage by Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London.

He is understood to find no evidence of bias in the corporation’s output, but suggests that on issues where there is a ‘scientific consensus’ – also including the MMR jab and genetically modified crops – there should be no need for the BBC to find opponents of the mainstream view. Critics of the BBC fear it may use the report as cover to ‘promote a green agenda’. In the past, the BBC has been accused of acting like a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.

As part of the report, Prof Jones suggests the broadcaster should appoint a senior science editor to provide expertise across channels. Another idea is to increase the use of scientists in programmes, for example as panellists on Question Time. Recently introduced rules on ‘due impartiality’ mean the BBC now has more flexibility in how it balances views on its shows. Corporation sources admit climate change is unlike most other areas of science in the passions it arouses and the political debate that surrounds it.

But a BBC insider close to the report said that when an issue had moved from ‘hypothesis’ to ‘consensus’, the broadcaster now needed to reflect that in the weight it gave to the different sides of the debate. ‘When they are minority views, the BBC is entitled to give them less weight rather than present it as “half the world thinks this and the half the world thinks that”,’ the source said. ‘It doesn’t mean those opposing the [mainstream] view will not be heard, but to be impartial, they would be given less weight. It is about not getting a false balance.’

Another corporation source said: ‘When there is a clear consensus, we don’t need to put the other side. ‘But this does not mean we are not going to have people who don’t agree with climate change, because balance is important.’

Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and a noted critic of the BBC, said: ‘My worry is they may use this argument that the science is settled to prevent anyone who is critical of the policies from being interviewed.’ He added the BBC was positioning itself in a ‘corner of political correctness’ and the science would be used as cover for bias in its reporting. Dr Peiser also questioned whether the BBC currently invites climate change sceptics on to shows.

It is understood some elements at BBC News are keen to carry on reflecting scepticism, because they think it is an important indicator of impartiality. However, the BBC Trust report means it is no longer necessary to do so. In recent years there have been a number of rows about the way the BBC has handled some scientific issues. In 2007 for example, Peter Barron, then editor of Newsnight, criticised the BBC’s stance on climate change, saying it was not its job to ‘save the planet’. He was backed by other executives, who feared the BBC was ‘leading’ the audience.

http://www.dailyfail.co.uk/news/article ... -rule.html

Consensus is not science.
Science is not consensus.

BBC: Blatantly Biased Corporation.
At least they've had the decency to be upfront and honest about their distorted and unfair reporting.

[Catheter Rising]

Consensus is not science.
Science is not consensus.

What about consensus amongst scientists? Surely that's exactly what science is?

Jesus, I've just seen they put the MMR Jab in the bit about 'scientific consensus'. If they're even beginning to suggest there's any sort of controversy surrounding this then the reporter should be banned from ever writing anything even vaguely science based.

And speaking of the author - judging by his previous articles, he seems to be quite obsessed. I think he may have been turned down for a job at the BBC.

http://www.dailyfail.co.uk/home/search. ... aul+Revoir

[Skarjo]

Funnily enough, I was going to post that bit of news. However, predictably, I was going to present from the slightly more rational coverage it got in The Independant that illustrated that the BBC had, quite rightly, learned the lessons of the MMR vaccine when it comes to giving equal weighting to fringe, unsubstantiated, minority viewpoints that don't have any actual scientific foundation in the name of achieving 'balance' in favour of simply weighting coverage of positions in relation to the respective bodies of scientific evidence behind them.

Of course, that would irritate those who demand their unfounded and unsubstantiated views be given equal weighting to those with acres of peer-reviewed evidence.

[Cal]

Of course, that would irritate those who demand their unfounded and unsubstantiated views be given equal weighting to those with acres of peer-reviewed evidence.

All of which which we have seen, time again, to be inaccurate, not adequately peer-reviewed at all and frankly risible. Please do not quote me the p*sspoor IPCC reports - everyone outside the blatantly insane knows their reports are political propaganda sheets paid for by European taxpayers to produce the messages required by pro-AGW EU governments, who foot the bill. The IntergovernmentalPCC is a governmental organisation. You really have to be bonkers to ignore the implications of that.

Your position is laughable. And so very typically arrogant of the pro-AGW brigade.

[Skarjo]

My position is not laughable, my position is the that of the overwhelming majority of scientists involved in the field, including my own actual real life friends who are actually involved in the actual research.

But whatever.

[Catheter Rising]

Ah, so it's a massive conspiracy to hide the truth. Gotcha.

At least we have the top scientific boffins from the daily mail looking out for us eh?

[Fm]

Your position is laughable. And so very typically arrogant of the pro-AGW brigade.

Cal, you are by several light years the most arrogant person in this thread.

[Cal]

Your position is laughable. And so very typically arrogant of the pro-AGW brigade.

Cal, you are by several light years the most arrogant person in this thread.

Me? Arrogant? Pish, I say, sir, and pish! again. Now move along, sir, or I shall call a Constable! Good day to you!

[Slartibartfast]

Climate change sceptics should get less BBC coverage and be challenged 'more vigorously', says report on science output

Broadcasters to give less airtime to critics of majority view

Climate change sceptics will get less of a hearing on the BBC because they are at odds with the majority view among scientists, a report reveals. The corporation’s governing body is set to change the way the BBC covers the issue by urging it to focus less on those who disagree with the majority ‘consensus’. The BBC Trust report, out today, is in part based on an independent review of the broadcaster’s coverage by Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London.

He is understood to find no evidence of bias in the corporation’s output, but suggests that on issues where there is a ‘scientific consensus’ – also including the MMR jab and genetically modified crops – there should be no need for the BBC to find opponents of the mainstream view. Critics of the BBC fear it may use the report as cover to ‘promote a green agenda’. In the past, the BBC has been accused of acting like a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.

As part of the report, Prof Jones suggests the broadcaster should appoint a senior science editor to provide expertise across channels. Another idea is to increase the use of scientists in programmes, for example as panellists on Question Time. Recently introduced rules on ‘due impartiality’ mean the BBC now has more flexibility in how it balances views on its shows. Corporation sources admit climate change is unlike most other areas of science in the passions it arouses and the political debate that surrounds it.

But a BBC insider close to the report said that when an issue had moved from ‘hypothesis’ to ‘consensus’, the broadcaster now needed to reflect that in the weight it gave to the different sides of the debate. ‘When they are minority views, the BBC is entitled to give them less weight rather than present it as “half the world thinks this and the half the world thinks that”,’ the source said. ‘It doesn’t mean those opposing the [mainstream] view will not be heard, but to be impartial, they would be given less weight. It is about not getting a false balance.’

Another corporation source said: ‘When there is a clear consensus, we don’t need to put the other side. ‘But this does not mean we are not going to have people who don’t agree with climate change, because balance is important.’

Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and a noted critic of the BBC, said: ‘My worry is they may use this argument that the science is settled to prevent anyone who is critical of the policies from being interviewed.’ He added the BBC was positioning itself in a ‘corner of political correctness’ and the science would be used as cover for bias in its reporting. Dr Peiser also questioned whether the BBC currently invites climate change sceptics on to shows.

It is understood some elements at BBC News are keen to carry on reflecting scepticism, because they think it is an important indicator of impartiality. However, the BBC Trust report means it is no longer necessary to do so. In recent years there have been a number of rows about the way the BBC has handled some scientific issues. In 2007 for example, Peter Barron, then editor of Newsnight, criticised the BBC’s stance on climate change, saying it was not its job to ‘save the planet’. He was backed by other executives, who feared the BBC was ‘leading’ the audience.

http://www.dailyfail.co.uk/news/article ... -rule.html

Consensus is not science.
Science is not consensus.

BBC: Blatantly Biased Corporation.
At least they've had the decency to be upfront and honest about their distorted and unfair reporting.

The BBC are not scientists. They should report the consensus of scientists because they do not have the expertise to differentiate between a legitimate scientific debate and those who merely use diversionary and disruptive tactics (much as we saw when smoking was threatened, for example) to confuse the baser science.

So yeah, unbiased reporting shouldn't be at the cost of giving oxygen to those who are only there to create illegitimate questions of legitimate science.

[Cal]

Sea-level rises are slowing, tidal gauge records show

ONE of Australia's foremost experts on the relationship between climate change and sea levels has written a peer-reviewed paper concluding that rises in sea levels are "decelerating".

The analysis, by NSW principal coastal specialist Phil Watson, calls into question one of the key criteria for large-scale inundation around the Australian coast by 2100 -- the assumption of an accelerating rise in sea levels because of climate change. Based on century-long tide gauge records at Fremantle, Western Australia (from 1897 to present), Auckland Harbour in New Zealand (1903 to present), Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour (1914 to present) and Pilot Station at Newcastle (1925 to present), the analysis finds there was a "consistent trend of weak deceleration" from 1940 to 2000. Mr Watson's findings, published in the Journal of Coastal Research this year and now attracting broader attention, supports a similar analysis of long-term tide gauges in the US earlier this year. Both raise questions about the CSIRO's sea-level predictions.

Climate change researcher Howard Brady, at Macquarie University, said yesterday the recent research meant sea levels rises accepted by the CSIRO were "already dead in the water as having no sound basis in probability. In all cases, it is clear that sea-level rise, although occurring, has been decelerating for at least the last half of the 20th century, and so the present trend would only produce sea level rise of around 15cm for the 21st century." Dr Brady said the divergence between the sea-level trends from models and sea-level trends from the tide gauge records was now so great "it is clear there is a serious problem with the models. In a nutshell, this factual information means the high sea-level rises used as precautionary guidelines by the CSIRO in recent years are in essence ridiculous," he said. During the 20th century, there was a measurable global average rise in mean sea level of about 17cm (plus or minus 5cm).

But scientific projections, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have suggested climate change will deliver a much greater global tide rise in mean sea level this century of 80-100cm. The federal government has published a series of inundation maps based on the panel's predictions showing that large areas of Australia's capital cities, southeast Queensland and the NSW central coast will be under water by 2100. Without acceleration in sea-level rises, the 20th-century trend of 1.7mm a year would produce a rise of about 0.15m by 2100. Mr Watson's analysis of the four longest continuous Australian and New Zealand records is consistent with the findings of US researchers Robert Dean and James Houston, who analysed monthly averaged records for 57 tide gauges, covering periods of 60 to 156 years. The US research concluded there was "no evidence to support positive acceleration over the 20th century as suggested by the IPCC, global climate change models and some researchers".

Mr Watson cautioned in his research and again yesterday that studies of a small number of northern hemisphere records spanning two or three centuries had found a small acceleration in sea-level rises. He said it was possible the rises could be subject to "climate-induced impacts projected to occur over this century". Mr Watson's research finds that in the 1990s, when sea levels were attracting international attention, although the decadal rates of ocean rise were high, "they are not remarkable or unusual in the context of the historical record at each site over the 20th century. What we are seeing in all of the records is there are relatively high rates of sea-level rise evident post-1990, but those sorts of rates of rise have been witnessed at other times in the historical record," he said. "What remains unknown is whether or not these rates are going to persist into the future and indeed increase." He said further research was required, "to rationalise the difference between the acceleration trend evident in the global sea level time-series reconstructions (models) and the relatively consistent deceleration trend evident in the long-term Australasian tide gauge records".

With an estimated 710,000 Australian homes within 3km and below 6m elevation of the coast, accurate sea-level predictions are vital for planning in coastal areas anticipating predicted sea-level rises of almost a metre by 2100.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6099350056

[Cal]

'There's too much climate change denial on the BBC'

Dr Steven Jones' amazing claim - but Auntie agrees

By Andrew Orlowski

Posted in Environment, 21st July 2011 12:43 GMT

"He's a little bit too eager to bend over backwards to be politically respectable," is how Richard Dawkins describes the celebrated snail biologist and broadcaster Dr Steven Jones.

Jones' recent political activity includes campaigning for the abolition of private schools and against a visit to Britain by the Pope. Now Jones has examined the BBC's science coverage – and concluded that there are too many climate sceptics appearing on the BBC. Jones was commissioned and endorsed by the BBC's independent governing body, the BBC Trust. The Trust invited Jones to report on the impartiality and accuracy of the Beeb's science coverage. Jones found that 75 per cent of the BBC's science stories were based on a single press release, and seven out of eight of those only feature the source – there is no additional view to the story. Jones also implies the correspondents are lazy: they rely on too few sources, too few experts, are overly dependent on reaction stories (to press releases) and focus too narrowly on too few subjects. Research conducted for Jones by the Science Communications Research Group at Imperial College found no significant factual errors in a monitoring period. But instead of giving the hacks a dusting down, Jones concludes that the BBC's science output is "of high quality". He recommends creating a Science Editor and an additional internal committee at the BBC that will meet regularly.

The Trust has welcomed Jones' conclusions and will endorse his recommendations. It will hold an impact assessment to report back next summer. Dr Jones was the BBC's Reith's Lecturer in 1991, has presented a six-part BBC TV series on genetics, and appears regularly on radio and TV.

That Jones was invited to report on the BBC's traditional policy of impartiality was relevant. The corporation has decided it isn't bound by the requirement, which is part of its charter, for environmental stories - a peace-time first.

Jones views on the climate "debate" are unambiguous: there isn't one, he says, despite "a drizzle" of activity from a handful of outside journalists who, he says, "have taken it upon themselves to keep disbelief alive". Because the BBC is annoying everyone, it must be doing something right, he reasons. Jones then dons a shrink's hat, and attempts to seek the psychology of the BBC's critics with some generalisations. He compares climate critics to 9/11 conspiracy theorists and pro-smoking campaigners who all "practise denialism", he says. "Purity of belief makes it easy for denialists to attract the attention of news organisations, but hard for them to balance their ideas against those of the majority. This can lead to undue publicity for views supported by no factual information at all."

"There have been many computer models of what may happen in future," Jones says, adding, "almost every climatologist predicts a period of rising temperature". "Truth is not defined by opinion polls," writes Jones, quoting six opinion poll surveys, "... but it is difficult to deny the consensus," he suggests. In light of this, too much emphasis has been given to climate sceptics, the report concludes, singling out Jeremy Vine for asking "Does anyone believe the claims anymore?", and for Vine's claims that "experts" were at "loggerheads". This is unnecessarily antagonistic journalism, thinks Jones, "10 years after the consensus has been reached that (whatever the cause) climate change is happening". Jones concludes: "The factual argument, even for activists, appears to be largely over, but parts of the BBC are taking a long time to notice."

Jones own factual accuracy has already taken a pasting. He claims the Global Warming Policy Foundation made a submission, but it didn't. Jones also claims "95% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from natural sources, while in fact human activity has been responsible for a 40% rise in concentration". Many Conservative MPs – I've spoken to several – are itching to abolish the BBC Trust. The body's unquestioning acceptance of Dr Jones' breezy report may have given them all the ammunition they need.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/21 ... ce_report/

[Grumpy David]

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism


http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds.

Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

We're saved!

[Cal]

We're saved!

If you mean we are 'saved' from crooked carbon trading scams and the wholesale lying to the public by pro-AGW politicians out to promote higher fuels bills and unimaginably wasteful spending on so-called 'renewable energy' schemes, sadly not, since Governments - particularly the pro-AGW EU - will simply disregard this report and its authors as it does not fit in with their well-rehearsed, dogmatic approach to AGW and it's associated propaganda.

The fact this report has come from NASA will not mean a thing to them. It will be quietly brushed aside and ultimately erased out of the record, in the finest IPCC tradition of silencing the dissenters in their midst, but perhaps not before armies of cowardly self-serving pro-AGW scientists slither out of the woodwork to first publicly 'debunk' this genuine research in an attempt to undermine it in public.

It simply will not do to have a respected scientific institution such as NASA daring to suggest there might be significant flaws in the pro-AGW agenda.

[Alvin Flummux]

Ironic, considering that all the things you attribute to the IPCC are things you have done yourself; anything that isn't in line with your anti-AGW agenda which you cannot argue against (i.e. reasoned scientific debate from people who know more than you) is ignored, swept under the carpet and forgotten.

Since this is from NASA, and they know their gooseberry fool, the report will be disseminated, digested, and either be proven or disproven over time by the greater scientific community. If it's proven right, obviously the pro-AGW side of the debate will have to adjust its predictions, climate models and whatnot. If it's proven wrong somehow, well, then it'll be wrong.

[Qikz]

Everyone knows CERN is just covering up their time travel experiments anyway. Did nobody listen to John Titor?

[Moggy]

CERN 'gags'

Two atoms were walking across a road when one of them said, "I think I lost an electron!" "Really!" the other replied, "Are you sure?" "Yes, I 'm absolutely positive."

Have you heard that entropy isn't what it used to be?

A neutron walked into a bar and asked, "How much for a drink?" The bartender replied, "For you, no charge."