The Daily Pravda spin Moscow’s line

RT @leftfootfwd: The Daily Express spin Moscow’s line to smear Met Office: http://is.gd/5rrtT

More from beady-eyed Brian: how the Daily Express peddles Moscow's line on climate change – http://bit.ly/6BHUlN

Shamik,

You are getting increasingly hysterical on the subject of climate change. You need to explore the other side of the coin.

I read New Scientist every week (for the physics coverage) – about 3 weeks ago they had a cover story on climate. Did you see it?

It seems like there is strong evidence that our climate models are stuffed, because they don’t conform to the neat computational cubes that the computers in the Met Office like to calculate.

Instead, however, it seems there is evidence that we should re-write our climate models, since surprise, surprise, climate is chaotic and fractal.

That demands different maths. Different computational models. Way different models to crunching numbers where the earth is modelled one cube at a time.

Al Gore is a knob jockey and equally alarmist and he is equally idiotic as The Daily Express is in the other direction. Use you head. Stop being hysterical and explore the other side of the coin.

I’ll resist posting the link which shows evidence that the New Scientist appear to have been colluding in Climate-Gate……… cos I’m nice like that.

“You need to explore the other side of the coin” is like the suggestion by supporters of Intelligent Design to ‘teach the controversy’. Among competent scientific experts there simply isn’t another side of the coin: the earth is warming, fast. There are a few who suggest other reasons, apart from greenhouse emissions, for this warming, though none has yet found one which correlates well with recent warming patterns. But to suggest, as the Express story does, that warming simply isn’t happening is something that no reputable scientist would agree with.

Tom – Where do you get your figures about the earth warming from?

Tom,

Has the Flying Spaghetti Monster used his noodly appendage on you?

Last time I looked, science wasn’t one sided and it welcomes (requires) criticism.

So, if science isn’t one sided, should we also be teaching and considering alternatives to evolution? Should the government not implement a health policy based on the theory that HIV causes AIDS, since there are scientists (even a Nobel prize winner!) who disagree with that?

A translation of the original Cyrillic report is now available is it’s damning in terms of CRU’s handling of the data. The report also provides a http link to the Russian raw data so you can use that and the CRU hack data to compare for yourself.

Place all stations onto the graph, a flat trend line, a natural fluctuation in line with other observations. Plot the CRU selection – hockey stick.

I notice that none of the usual suspects from CRU or Grantham have rubbished this report. Odd that. Maybe they’ll call the two authors assh*les too.

As for gas and oil being imperiled, Shell and BP don’t think so, they have been funding and seeking advice from CRU for almost ten years.

If anything Big Oil will benefit from climate change because the carbon credits alone will create a very large potential for offset and trade.

Face it, there is a old acronym in computing – GIGO. Garbage in Garbage out, CRU have been putting garbage temperature data into their model, it’s been spitting out garbage. It’s over for the climate change lobby.

Tom – Where do you get your figures about the earth warming from?

Second go…

Tom, you need to clarify your terms. What do you mean by a competent scientific expert? In what way would such a person differ from any other kind of scientific expert, given that a key determinant of expertise is competence? Do you mean someone who agrees with the majority view? If so, then not so long ago the majority view was that the universe was filled with ether. Were those scientists who did not agree with that view incompetent? How did they change from being incompetent to competent without changing their views? The timing of the announcement of this data (which is not backed up by satellite data) by the Met Office on the day before the Climate conference began was political not scientific. One should be a little suspicious of science when it becomes embroiled in politics. See here for a jokey, but telling account of how scientific research proceeds http://bit.ly/8RaITY

Tom,

I couldn’t be arsed to try and type a reply in the 1 inch viewing window available on this blog, so I lavished you with a response on my own blog.

Let me get this right, you’re claiming Galileo would have agreed with you had he been around today?!

Shamik,

Nope. Just pointing out that it is valid to question the accepted orthodoxy using evidence. That is what this blog is for isn’t it?

lets face it, the earth is warming, the weather stations shows the unequivocally

the question is, how much is due to humans and how much would have happened without the CO2 rise (or would the temperature have gone down and the CO2 effect is worse than thought?)

this then leads to the question of hjow much temp rise we can expect in future

these questions are as yet unanswered. the evidence and the models are just not sufficient as yet – FACT

my solution would be to stop arguing about it and have a carbon tax based on the last year’s overall temperature as given by weather stations. if the earth is going to heat up a lot – fine, the C tax will address that. if it doesn’t, everyone’s happy.

george – The method of taking the temperature changed in 2003, which set of results are you working from?

Tom, looks like the deniers are running scared: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/14/climate-change-sceptic-ian-plimer And this guy’s meant to be their leader!

anon

i’m working from the 1500 dataset released by met office last week. looks ok to me. the rise is obvious (though i haven’t corrected for weather station distributions) well before 2003. my graph is a little different from theirs probably due to this but I’m convinced anyway. the other advantage is i can construct the CRU curve equivalent form this dataset in about 100 lines of code, so no chance of ‘hiding’ anything, assuming the weather station data they released is ok.

i’m happy to move on from this, but i have big issues with the predictions, especially from the circulation models which have BIG error bars.

[...] is “natural”. Praise also to the New Scientist, who published a point-by-point rebuttal of the Daily Express front page which listed “100 LIES REASONS WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS [...]

[...] is “natural”. Praise also to the New Scientist, who published a point-by-point rebuttal of the Daily Express front page which listed “100 LIES REASONS WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS [...]

[...] The Daily Pravda spin Moscow’s line (leftfootforward.org) [...]