Still more weather forecasts

Peter from Maidstone

Well to be fair, as the new Shorter Climactic Measurement Calendar becomes more popular and widespread it is the case that winter will no longer see much snow in the UK. The SCMC excludes the months of December and January and Winter (for climate measurement purposes) is restricted to a few weeks in November and February. If snow does fall in December and January this is not statistically relevant for climate measurement purposes, nor will it be considered as falling the new Climate Measurement Adjusted Winter and will only count as 'non-statistically valid weather'.

logdon

"Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

They do now.

And thanks to the pathetic idle Marxists in charge of school closures.

Without labouring the Pythonesque comparisons I cannot remember one day off school because of weather.

Maybe it was because we walked.

Dixon

Peter from M, Is this true? Its even weirder than anything in any science fiction "dystopia" story. Makes Orwells vision seem positively unimaginitive. Brian Aldiss's 90-minute Hour seemed wacky and far-fetched, but this surely trumps it.

Dixon

Damn, Peter from M, now you have given Marcus Prigs Cock the ruse he needs to airbrush out this winter from the years average! He can just ignore it and say its been proven by overwhelming scientific consensus ( ! ??? ) that January doesnt exist!

Nicholas

Peter, I try to avoid studying the various climate change theories and their science because I prefer my own prejudice. If what you wrote is irony it is very funny. If it is true it is not.

We have been led so far along the path of bonkers by the issues elite that it is now very difficult to tell.

Bickers

The Chinese did us all a favour by sinking the AGW ship at Copenhagen. As more and more people do their own research they're finding that (i) there's nothing remarkable about the Earth going through mini warming and cooling periods betwen the Ice Ages, (ii) the slight warming of the 20th century could be accounted for as we came out of the Little Ice Age, (iii) the climate is cooler than it was in the Medievil warming period (when SUV's blocked up all the streets!!), (iv) the cooler periods seem to coincide with decreased sun spot activity (Google Svenmark) & (v) CO2's contribution to any warming is small due to its logrithmic effect i.e. that as more CO2 goes into the system its contribution to warmimg drops dramatically.

Oh! and those pesky computer models (GIGO) predicted that there AGW would produce a hotspot in the troposphere over the equator - nobody's been able to find one for 20+ years! How inconvenient. In normal scientific research if a key projected outcome can't be observed or measured you tear up the hypothesis and start again, however too many people, companies, NGO's, politicians and and rent seekers have a vested interest in keeping up the AGW/Dangerous Climate Change scam that we've a way to go yet before the bandwagon is permanantly derailed.

David

Well, if this doesn't happen again for 20 years, he'll be right. We won't know for a while.....

Philip Edwards

Schools don't want to open if there's a chance that some of their puipils won't make it in. It adversely affects their attendance figures and therefore their standing in the league tables. How pathetic!

Anyhow, enought trivia. Is Rod going to edit the Indy? What a mouth-watering prospect!

Go Rod, say yes!

Pete

I got to thinking about students applying for university places and began wondering who would try for any degree at the place. I then popped over to their web site to check the place out a little more.
The "Guidelines" pdf available there states...

-At the heart of UEA’s innovative thinking, exemplified by the motto "Do Different",
was the principle of-

I nearly chocked on my coffee.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/hr/fp/guidelines-ss.pdf

Old Slaughter

As much fun as this is. The taking of individual observations and drawing wider conclusions is clearly churlish.

However, when looking at the long term temp graphs, this just seemed like part of peak that appeared to occur every 500 years or so. If the graph pattern was continued it looked like we have at a peak and would start getting colder and colder.

I have no idea if this is going to be the case but that is certainly how it seemed.

Of course if we start cooling these communists will use it as evidence of man0made global cooling.

Baron Pippin II

am beginning to feel abit sorry for the AGW fruitcakes. So soon after the shouting of ‘Armageddon round the corner’ at the Copenhagen gathering a truly vicious Winter everywhere. They must know that the feeble excuse of decoupling climate and weather cannot do it. It must be painful, and we should feel magnanimous towards the genuine two dozen AGW believers.

Old Slaughter

Rod,

You going to the Indy (I am always tree steps behind)

Wow! That would be fantastic, a British broadsheet that might actually start addressing real issues and denying the PC, multicultural orthodoxy.

If this is true, congrats and good luck. The country needs it.
(not to mention the Indy)

Dixon

Baron Pipin, how dare you, magnanimous my ass man! Weve been shafted by these scoundrels for a decade ( and, sorry to those who keep saying it, but its nothing to do with also having had Nu Labour in power ). Now we need to really stick the boot in. Not because of some chilly weather ( that's just good for countering their selective use of weather as "evidence" when it suits them ) but because of the still unfolding glories of Climate Gate.

Take no prisoners. Wipe out their villages ( well, their pecuniary loci, if we are lucky ) napalm the lot of them with merciless lashings of sarcasm and spite.

robbo

So newspeak has moved from 'Global warming' to 'Climate Change'? Trouble is, snow falling in winter doesn't sound much like 'Climate change' to me. How about introducing the concept of 'Dangerous Same Old Same Old'?

workie ticket

I know the difference between CC and weather. I watched a C4 programme before Christmas where Jon Snow (yes he) unequivocally stated that the Cumbrian floods were down to CC.

All this snow is just weather. I know this because e v e r y s i n g l e TV weather report has avoided the phrases CC or Global Warming - its almost as if they have collectively got together with the Met Office to agree how this unforeseen snow stuff should be explained away/presented. The answer seems to be that they will unsaddle the CC/AGW high horse until it melts.

Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh on the Met Office who couldn't predict this snow 2 weeks before it happened. A Met Off loon explained this by saying that it was much easier to predict the weather/climate 30 YEARS AHEAD (!) than 3 weeks (!). This comment went by unremarked by the on message journo.

To think when I was younger I used to laugh at the antics of the Eastern Bloc media.

Peter from Maidstone

Dixon and Nicholas, I was of course being ironic, but the worrying thing is that it could so easily be true, and the AGW lobby could (and have already done) so very easily convince themselves that simply excising any data that did not match their vision of the future was entirely reasonable.

Heads They Win Tails You Lose

Unfortunately, Rod, the Global Warmists are now trying to have us believe that the cold snap actually proves their point; as per Giles Coren in The Times today...

"Nobody who understands the science is claiming that global warming (if it happens) is going to make Britain hotter in the long run. You hear me? Nobody is saying that... It will do the opposite. Global warming will in the end interfere with the ocean currents, knock out the Gulf Stream, and remove the protection we have from the icy Nordic weather that is our due, as sharers of the same latitude as Siberia. Britain will get colder."

Perhaps David Viner is just a bit off-message.

Amanda in America

Baron Pip 2:

All right, then:

Peace, Long Life, Money, and May The Force Be With You

I think that covers everything.

Baron

Dixon, my angry friend, I was merely suggesting showing magnanimity towards the few genuine believers, not the high command of the faith and the army of blind followers. These ought to be stripped naked, sat in the freezing snows of Europe, the Americas and Asia and forced to sing ‘warm the cockles of my heart, you CO2 air part’ to the tune of Abba’s I have a dream.

Amanda: it's a deal, you American star.

Baron

Has anyone seen Lupus Lungfish, our liquid loving friend? Shouldn’t we ask the police to start looking for him? Who knows, in these freezing conditions he may be already in Coren’s understanding of the AGW insanity ‘globally warmed’ to death within the ice crust of his swimming bowl. What a cruel world.

Derek

It is, of course, our collective fault for electing politicians of all parties who are almost to a man/woman untutored in any discernable form of science or evidence-based subjects and who believe whatever convincing nonsense unscrupulous [at best] grant-hungry scientists tell them. The unholy alliance we now see among the AGW scientists, the subsidy- and profit-hungry renewable energy industry and the tax-hungry politicians has made Greenpeace redundant and sooo 1980s. By the way, I don't think it's as bad yet as the winter of 1962/3, but maybe I'm just getting old and my memories growing fonder...

Dixon

Peter from M, phew, what a relief. My apoplexy could not have been contained much longer!

On the other hand, that we believed it indicates how close to such an arrangement being accepted we are! a year ago, in a wild speculation, I imagined a future in which smokers had to register for an annual permit to buy tobacco. I thought that was far fetched. A few months later a BMA affiliated group actually proposed it to government. They are now actively campaigning for it.

So its actually hard to imagine anything that isnt capable of being treated seriously now in this insane asylum run by the "clients" called the UK.

Meanwhile, isnt there also the danger of "cry wolf". Next time I hear about such a proposal I shall be less inclined to work up a warranted steam of vitriol, and yet it might turn out to be true!

BTW, Baron, its the sheep-like foot-followers I am most angry at! At least the professional doom-sayers have the rational motive of avida-dollars in their account. But sheep who bleat along have no excuse whatsoever. I say again, show them no mercy. Haul them to the pillockry at every oportunity. Which reminds me, whats happenned to Marcus Prig-Cock?

Lee Jakeman

As we've moved to New Zealand, I agree wholeheartedly that “within a few years winter snowfall in Britain will become a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

Maybe that's what he meant ...

Amanda in That Other Place

Baron:

:^)

Amanda you-know-where

P. S. to Baron:

I completely bungled the Spock/Star Trek reference.

It should have been 'Live Long and Prosper' -- as someone who is teaching a course on the political-cultural meaning of Star Trek reminded me.

The real version sounds better and takes care of the money angle, too.

And there was I wishing you Peace and Long Life Milk.

Baron

Amanda in that other place:

listen, I but a poorly educated Slav. What’s this :^), explain.

And another thing.: I was lucky today to reach a place in which connection to the Net ticks well. Only He knows what tomorrow may bring.

JohnBUK

It's no good, Pravda is not giving in without a fight!

"How Big Freeze Fits Global Warming".
news.bbc.co.uk/weather/hi/climate

Can't work out whether it's weather or Climate (used to be so simple years ago).

Wilhelm

Do you think God is going to create a planet, 100 Billion years old, along comes some humans who build a couple of coal power stations in Scunthorpe blowing out some smoke.

And God is going to say '' Oh bugger, my plans have been wrecked by The National Coal Board.''

The Sun has 20 Billions years left, if that goes out, then we are in trouble, look on the bright side , no more Davina McCall mugging to the camera.

Dixon

Wilhelm, yoiu know my view, existence itself IS the dark-side!

Anyway, the Russians may be sceptical of AGW but they are taking seriously the prospect of Earth being hit by Apophis in 2026:
http://www.spacedaily.com/2006/091230103758.t3amlyoz.html

Meanwhile, there are plenty of other hazards that could wipe out all life on Earth completely. For example, oyput from an as yet unknown proximal X-ray burster could theoretically hit our part of the galaxy at absolutely anytime ( we dont know enough about them to say ) causing total extinction of everything on the surface of the planet.

It is against the tapestry of such possibilities that I view AGW as something that is essentially trivial. It is the failure to grasp the fact that "climate change" is a mere pecccadillo that makes me feel such utter contempt for those who trumpet it all the time as the ultimate doom. They are so pathetically ignorant of anything not pumped out by the mass media. Their slavish observance of AGW is all part and parcel of our kitsch-riddled celebrity culture and, yes, Davina McCall et al are the real high-priestesses!

Dan Boston

What I don't get is that, in the summer months when there is a particularly hot day, the climate change gurus spout that this a evidence of climate change, but when there's a cold snap, this is just wheather and not related to the overall climate conditions. A bit of consistency may help with their (ever dwindling) credibility.

robbo

Dan: but they're not even consistent about the latter point - some of the simpletons (Coren) DO claim that the freezing winter "proves" there is climate change (something about "the more warming there is, the colder it will get"...)

David Ossitt

Dixon.

“It is against the tapestry of such possibilities that I view AGW as something that is essentially trivial. It is the failure to grasp the fact that "climate change" is a mere peccadillo that makes me feel such utter contempt for those who trumpet it all the time as the ultimate doom”

I agree totally; it is all a great big fiddle, a business, it is the Emperors cloths syndrome, carried to the highest level.

David Ossitt

Dixon.

“It is against the tapestry of such possibilities that I view AGW as something that is essentially trivial. It is the failure to grasp the fact that "climate change" is a mere peccadillo that makes me feel such utter contempt for those who trumpet it all the time as the ultimate doom”

I agree totally; it is all a great big fiddle, a business, it is the Emperors cloths syndrome, carried to the highest level.

Andy

These big big scientists with their big big research grants have been pulling the wool over our eyes for too long.

As for Dr David Viner, what a useless tit. Mystic Meg he ain't. There are two types of predictions: wrong ones and lucky ones.

Vicky Pope of the Met Office announced at Copenhagen that "the world continues to see global temperature rise most of which is due to increasing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and clearly shows that the argument that global warming has stopped is flawed".

Her evidence came from data by the "respected" CRU at the University of East Anglia.

In other words, a whole bunch of figures we can no longer trust prove our conclusions are true.

The papers and the BBC then go on to print Pope’s statement as fact.

And they wonder why people are sceptical...

Nicholas

Is there an echo in here?

Seriously, though, I recall the Global Warming nuts, aka AGW/Climate Change ("Don't mention the weather!") brigade assuring us with more than a tipload of dogma that we would experience mild, wet winters and hot dry summers. So far, spectacularly, the exact opposite.

It is not science, folks, but rather a cult of the same fervid dreariness as the Greenham Common wimmen.

Optimus "Climate Denier" Prime

Dr David Viner must surely be an anagram of Dr Liam Donaldson?

Peter from Maidstone

I know that I was thinking myself ironic in describing how the climate changers would only be collecting data that suited their ideology. Well unfortunately it turns out that I was not being ironic enough.

Read this from someone at the Met Office reported in the Times today....

This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings.

There you have it. It is a warm winter because all the cold measurements are discarded!!!!

I am beyond speech. This is more insane that anything in 1984. What do we do about such organisations? They must surely be swept away? There is something truly wicked about the cold, calculated nature of these monstrous political organisms.

Frank S

The whole worlds and its dog has seen through the climate alarmists' shameful moneygrubbing for grants and computers and carbon windfalls. See here for a US blogger, also picking up on the Times of India, and some London writer called Coren (whom I hoped and pray is nothing to do with the chap who used to write so well in Punch): http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/01/10/climategate-continues-follow-the-money-not-the-temperature/

Django Peg

Giles Coren is an idiot. He's not a patch on his father and treats his subeditors like peasants

Alexandrovich

No matter what Giles thinks, it's Victoria who is the undeniable 'chip off the old block'. Alan was justifiably proud of her and she's no slouch at poker either, judging by her winnings.

John Levett

Peter from Maidstone @12.14pm - I saw that article as well. I entirely agree that such organisations should be dispensed with but we seem to have reached a stage where truth and decency are now irrelevant in public life. Is there some great conspiracy or is the world just undergoing some collective madness?

What's really bizarre is that so few people seem to be concerned that they're being significantly conned: blogs on the subject of climate change attract many comments but they're all from a relatively small number of people.

Dixon

I thought Coren was good in that food programme. Even though I hate, detest and loathe the entire industry of food programmes. The one in question was quite good. He was also good in that show which ...even though it was BBC...debunked "organic" food.

The bottom line though is that regarding AGW mouthpieces like Coren or Prigs Cock ( for thats all they are, professional self-propelled mouths ) are neither scientists nor students of epistemology. Therefore the fake authority with which they merely repeat received opinions of others is what makes them seem particularly arrogant and pompous. As my mother used to say about James Burke "he talks like he knows it himself".

The irony here is that James Burke actually DID know some things himself. Moreover, that one doesnt need to be a climate scientist to see that AGW os pseudo-science as long as one has the least understanding of the philosophy of science.

Thats why even the supposedly "expert" science correspondents are usually completely out of their depth. Most of them probably couldnt distinguish Wittgenstein from a beer stein! They are utterly incapable of spotting a circular argument when they see one. And thats what AGW is, totally circular.

Frank P

Here! Haven't you been intructed to write a piece about Purnell yet? He's been pushing the boat out round the boozer obviously. See two of the last three CH posts.

Carl

I'm more concerned about the Russians trying to take out an asteroid than a few flakes of snow.

David Ossitt

Optimus "Climate Denier" Prime

“Dr David Viner must surely be an anagram of Dr Liam Donaldson?”

No sorry; it is the well known sexologist, Dr Divan Diver.

Dixon

"Carl
January 11th, 2010 7:17pm
I'm more concerned about the Russians trying to take out an asteroid than a few flakes of snow."

Medvev, not Bruce Wiilis: the use of nuclear devices is very unlikely. Too big a risk of turning one big impact into millions of little ones. Safer procedures are under investigation.

Personally, I'd love the impact to occur, just out of curiosity. But its very, very unlikely.

David Ossitt

Peter from Maidstone
January 11th, 2010 12:14pm

“This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings.”

“There is something truly wicked about the cold, calculated nature of these monstrous political organisms”

Peter there you have it in a nutshell; we are being lied to by government and all the vast hotchpotch of government agencies, we are all being led by the nose, into a world where right is wrong, good is bad, where the honest will be prosecuted and the criminal will go free, where a feckless girls can reproduce and be kept by the state, and where any foreign criminal who manages to reach our shores can live off a our backs by taking benefits from the state that he has not contributed to.

Dixon

David Osset, comforting though it might be to attribute these issues to the Labour Government, the fact is that it isnt going to make any difference what government we have, it is now the culture and it pervades all nations of Western Europe and the US. Irrespective of which party happens to be in power.

Lets face it, the same people who make us sick, the academic fraternity, the ugly battalions of "comedy", etc, were the ones agitating AGAINST this government for most of the past decade.

David Ossitt

Dixon

“David Osset, comforting though it might be to attribute these issues to the Labour Government, the fact is that it isnt going to make any difference what government we have, it is now the culture and it pervades all nations of Western Europe and the US. Irrespective of which party happens to be in power.”

I am sure that you are right in your assertions, but it is still wrong that our traditions, values and way of life are being cast aside.

GaryO

OT: Rod for the Independent!

EyeSee

I think it was quite brave of Dr. Viner. Think about it. Most AGW advocates and certainly those claiming some lead role are pretty careful to keep their pronouncements firmly in the astrology camp; broad, impossible to tie down. But Viner backed up the rhetoric, I mean if it really is warming and CO2 is the driver then, ipso facto, snowy winters will soon be a thing of the past. How the Pachauri's and Jones's of this world must have clasped their heads and sighed. Don't give an easily verifiable instance, rooted in the short term. Talk about massive disasters 'somewhere' and 'sometime'. Really, some of the people involved in AGW are eejits. In the bible, Jesus didn't give sick people a medicine he had come up with that cured them. No, he laid on hands and up they rose. Miracle, see? That's what religion is all about, stuff beyond your ken. If you make it real you ruin the whole thing. I reckon he'll be cast out.

Old Slaughter

Are you constipated Rod or is this quality difficult to maintain?

Mirth required. Hurry up!

Peter from Maidstone

Eyesee, your analogy doesn't really work. When Jesus healed someone they were healed and it was real. The blind saw again, the dead came back to life. Everyone saw what had happened.

The trouble with AGW is that nothing ever happens. Pronouncements are made which prove to be wrong. In the olden days such false prophets would have been cast out of the community, not given several more attempts to come up with a prophecy that actually came to pass.

"This will be a very mild Winter and will be more like April" is both a clear prediction and clearly very wrong. If AGW was a true religion then there would still be clear predictions but they would have come true.

Dixon

David Osset, I agree, but I think the problem is rooted in the cadres: teachers, academics, the professional cliques ( eg, medical ) and, above all, the broadcast media. Chiefly, I will agree with many who comment here, the BBC.

Dixon

Eyesee, you are right of course, religions are always prophesying this that or the other, usually that the end is nih, but never anything specific.

As you say, its the technique used by astrologers, psychics, mystics and BBC weather "forecasters": "later [when] there will be rain in the West [where exactly, between Swindon and Lands End is "The West" ] which will ease away [ in an hour? a day? a week?...of course itll ease away, sooner or later] leading to a dry period later [well the opposite of rain is dry and "later" could mean anything].

I would only add, its called a "Barnum statement" after the principal early describer of the technique, P.T.Barnum.

Wily Seatrout Cole

We've all been very naughty and the seas will rise and there will be a great flood. I've read this before in some old book or other.

Lupus

Baron- I'v been interned in an institution for the criminally insane - back in a few months.

A thorn in your side

Oh dear another misunderstanding in a long and tedious litany of misunderstandings, misrepresentions, distortion and downright lies. The concept of local effects v global effects is just too difficult for all of you to grasp. Undoubtedly you clowns, and Dixon is the biggest pseudo-intellectual clown of all, won't take the opportunity to educate yourselves.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Where-did-global-warming-go-heres-where.html

And Rod, you have been shameless in fanning the flames of doubt regarding a scientific dicipline (AGW) in which there is little doubt, whilst maintaining the grotesque fiction that your are exhibiting a healthy scepticisim. My ar*e. Either you unable to get to grips with the science or more likely you are more concerned with placating the lunatic fringe that is your bread and butter. I would have thought that the Rod Liddle circa the Today programme would have had sufficient intellectual curiousity and journalistic integrity to make himself aware of the science. Well I guess the revenue stream resulting from your Spectator debacle will help to support your lifestyle and the inevitable dimming of a few more billion neurons.

Dixon

"A thorn in your side
January 12th, 2010 4:54pm
Oh dear another misunderstanding in a long and tedious litany of misunderstandings, misrepresentions, distortion and downright lies. The concept of local effects v global effects is just too difficult for all of you to grasp. Undoubtedly you clowns, and Dixon is the biggest pseudo-intellectual clown of all, won't take the opportunity to educate yourselves.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Where-did-global-warming-go-heres-where.html"

Thats a litany of assertions. Wheres your argument in support of them?

I can just as legitimately say you are a complete idiot. In the absence of any argument the latter assertion is as valid as yours.

Yes, you are an idiot. I understand the AGW hypothesis inside and out. But I also have a knowledge of a much broader range of subjects than the like of yourself. Which is why you are an idiot if you try to argue with me....assuming you have the balls to try.

So come on, wheres the argument?

As they say, put up or shut up!

robbo

The "Rod Liddle circa the Today programme"? You mean the one that proselytized for the Labour Party and served as a useful idiot for the PC bien pensant Guardianistas? Yes, that's right: precisely the kind of person who fills your nutjob Church of the Climate Change

Dixon

Assuming the arrogant prat cannot bring forward any argument in support of his diatribe, lets actually look at a few of the howlers contained even within the span of his invective:

"A thorn in your side
January 12th, 2010 4:54pm

...The concept of local effects v global effects is just too difficult for all of you to grasp...."

Actually, that we do understand it is the basic premise of the entire thread. Its only BECAUSE we understand it...and Rod assumes that of us...that he is able to cite the absurdity of Viner making short term predictions ( "a few years", his words ) about LOCAL conditions ( incidence of snowfall ) on the basis of conjectured GLOBAL patterns. So, really, we are leaps and bounds ahead of you in this narrative and it is you, Mr Thorn. who are incapable of understanding the incisive nature of Liddles sarcasm. As summated in the final line of his piece.

"... Undoubtedly you clowns, and Dixon is the biggest pseudo-intellectual clown of all, won't take the opportunity to educate yourselves...."

No, Mr Thorn, it is you who, judging by the previous howler, is the numpty and it is you who havent taken the trouble to a) actually read what I have been saying ( I cannot speak on behalf of others ), b) study the arguments underlying distinctions between science and psudo-science and c) provide any argument that would validate Dr Viners laughably inept assertion.

Oh, whilst you fancy including one inna billion web-links means something, I would suggest you read "Logik Der Forschung" by Karl Popper, or any of the discussions of "science and pseudo-science" by Imre Lakotos.

"...And Rod, you have been shameless in fanning the flames of doubt regarding a scientific dicipline (AGW)..."

A laughable statement. Geology, physics, these are scientific disciplines. You could say climate studies is a discipline. But to say AGW is a discipline is like saying Transformational Grammar is a discipline. Fundamentally indicative of a profound ignorance. Its not a discipline, its a hypothesis. Doh. what a moron!

"... in which there is little doubt,..."

Well, that clearly is a dumb addition to the previous absurd statement.

"... whilst maintaining the grotesque fiction that your are exhibiting a healthy scepticisim. My ar*e..."

So now Mr Thorn pretends he can read Liddles mind, how otherwise would such an assertion make sense?

"... Either you unable to get to grips with the science..."

A ludicrous assertion, if you look up Liddles CV, and, already exposed in my earlier observation as indicating how dim you are MR Thorn in not understanding that the entire thrust of the thread is based on having such an understanding, which is why Viners comment appears so absird.

"... or more likely you are more concerned with placating the lunatic fringe that is your bread and butter...."

This is that old chesnut that the only reason anyone would challenge AGW is because they are being paid to, which is the last resort of the dimmo conspiracy theorists among us.

"... I would have thought that the Rod Liddle circa the Today programme would have had sufficient intellectual curiousity and journalistic integrity to make himself aware of the science..."

This is a circular statement, indicating a circular mind-set, in which "being aware of the science" is implicitly "agreeing with my view of the science", as the prior reference to "intellectual curiosity" as an opposition to a lack of awareness of the science can only make sense if it is interpreted as meaning "in spite of" such intellectual curiosity.

"... Well I guess the revenue stream ..."

Thjere we go, that old conspiracy nutters charge that those who deny the conspiracy are only doing so for the cash, again!

"...resulting from your Spectator debacle will help to support your lifestyle..."

Another of these stereotypes, the assumption that anyone who disagrees with the AGW lobbgy must be living it up biog-time! I would bet cash any day that my "carbon footprint" is tiny compared to yours Mr Thorn. Of Liddle I cannot vouch, but the assumption is nonetyheless obviously daft.

"... and the inevitable dimming of a few more billion neurons."

Well, we would have to go dar to find as dimm a collection of neurones as on display in Prat Thorns drivel, wouldnt we!

Dixon

Apologies for my spelling...trying to write comments on one hand and conduct phone-calls simultaneously on the other doesnt help, I of course meant Imre Lakatos ( not "Lakotos" ).

A thorn in your side

Hook, line and sinker. My posting has nothing to do with Dr Viner and more to do with the vacuous distortions promulgated by the 'denial' community, in this case vis-a-vis the weather/climate dichotomy. Having said that, great research on the cherry picking, Rod has picked on one the giants of climate science!

OK Dixon,I'm glad my accusations of pseudo-intellectualism haven't been wasted and I see I can add pedant to a list of your disagreeable characteristics. Forget your pretentious allusions to Popper and please put forward a counter hypothesis to explain the phenomena commonly associated with AGW i.e. average global temp increase, melting glaciers, increased CO2 in the atmosphere etc. Try to be reasonably brief as I know from all your previous postings that there isn't too much scientific thinking going on in your little old cranium. I'd be flabbergasted if you have a qualification in a scientific discipline. Not many anti-AGW do. No waffle just the science as you perceive it. We shall see how much you know. For someone who 'gets' AGW you don't appear to be inclined to address the actual science, such as the link on the previous post which you have transparently ignored. This will be so easy.

Dixon

"A thorn in your side
January 12th, 2010 8:52pm
Hook, line and sinker. My posting has nothing to do with Dr Viner ..."

BUT THIS DISCUSSION IS INDEED ABOUT DR VINER, AS ANYONE NOT A DUNCE WILL HAVE NOTICED.

"...Having said that, great research on the cherry picking, Rod has picked on one the giants of climate science! "

Could you please explain that sentence. It makes no sense in English as we know it.

"...OK Dixon,I'm glad my accusations of pseudo-intellectualism haven't been wasted and I see I can add pedant to a list of your disagreeable characteristics. Forget your pretentious allusions to Popper.."

Saying that doesnt make the facts go away. Or are you saying you are a better logician and philosopher than Popper?

"... and please put forward a counter hypothesis to explain the phenomena commonly associated with AGW..."

Well thats dumb fopr a start, AGW is one hypothesis to explain climate change, the phenomena are associated with the latter, not the former. The reality of climate change itself is not the issue. Doh. Your cpmprehension is as poor as pease pudding!

"... i.e. average global temp increase,...."

Having established the irrelevance of your line of uh, "argument" ( which is like saying you can prove a man committed a crime by proving that the crime was committed, an incredibly rudimentary failure of logic ) I might as well demonstrate your ignorance of some of the topics ypu touch upon. Such as mean temperature.

The fact is that there has been no measured increase for a decade. Not even AGW proponents deny this. The last decade was the warmest only because of the warming that occurred ten years previously.

Secondly, the alleged hockey stick of increasing temperature has been shown to only be tenable if you ignore two entire periods of warm and cold exceptions within the historical record.

Thirdly, the crucial Siberian tree-ring proxy data which is used to support the contention is based solely upon ELEVEN trees selected out of a sample group pf TWO HUNDRED, to include only those which support the contention.

Fourthly, the period of greatest increase in CO2 emissions corresponds with a period of cooling. You might fall back on the aerosal conjecture as a defence but that only demonstrates the Lakotian critique of "defensive belts of subordinate hypothesese". Ie, it would prove my point tabout AGW being circular.

Fifthly, even were the alleged increase in temperature as claimed, that tells us nothing about the validity or otherwise of a given explanation.

Sixthly, even the absence of a valid explanation for a contested phenomenon does not in itself validate an existing an invalid conjecture. Your logic is clearly completely potty on that.

"... melting glaciers, increased CO2 in the atmosphere etc...."

Christ, you really havent a clue have you, what you are talking about. Increased CO2 is allegedly the cause of AGW, not evidence for it occurring. Like I said before, you rant about our knowledge of the science but you obviously havent the foggiest idea about even this basic point.

As for glaciers, news son, they melt all the time. Thats basic GCSE gography. My God, you are incredibly ignorant. Glaciers continously melt and slide towards the lowest ground or the sea, being reconstiututed at altitude by snowfall.

You might be confusing glaciers with polar ice. I wouldnt imagine that except that you are obviously so utterly clueless that probably thats what you are groping towards referring to. Well, news again, there is less area of Arctic ice but it is increasing in thickness. Meanwhile, in the Antarctic, the west is losing ice but the East is gaining it. The area and thickness of ice in the East Antarctic is now greater than at any time since records began.

In any case, this is all utterly besides the point. The issue about AGW is not the existence or otherwise of climate change but a particular hypothesis regarding Human contruibution to it. So, really, you miss the point of the discussion to TWO degrees, firstly that its about Dr Viners comment, secondly that criticism of AGW doesnt not necessarily entail denying climate change, you prat.

"...Try to be reasonably brief as I know from all your previous postings that there isn't too much scientific thinking going on in your little old cranium...."

Clearly, I at least know a lot more about the topic than you do!

Whats more you know nothing whatsoever about me. Even at my age, I just got a first in a science subject LAST YEAR! You prat, second.

"... I'd be flabbergasted if you have a qualification in a scientific discipline..."

Psychology, chemistry, geography, and maths. Even though I am pretty innumerate. You prat, third.

"... Not many anti-AGW do..."
You mean like Freeman Dyson isnt a scientist...to choose but one. You are obviously living in a hole without access to journals or any inclination to find out what goes on in the world.

"... No waffle just the science as you perceive it...."

Thats choice, coming from someone who thinks increased CO2 is evidence of, rather than an alleged cause of, climate change.

"... We shall see how much you know. For someone who 'gets' AGW you don't appear to be inclined to address the actual science,..."

Again, pretty ironic coming from someone who appears not even to understand the basic contentions involved.

"... such as the link on the previous post which you have transparently ignored. This will be so easy...."

Im not arguing with someone on a web-site somewhere else. You came here and started abusing the rest of us, me in particular, so its you Im addressing. Posting a link elsewhere is like some little kid shouting abuse at someone and then running to hide behind his big brother when that someone responds.

Irrespective of what goes on inside your little ignoramous skull, I think others reading your daft comments and my rebuttal will agree with me that you are surely one of the dimmest, poorly educated imbeciles we have had the pleasure of encountering here.

A thorn in your side

Best to ignore most of your ill-educated rant and wordplay; let’s stick with the Science shall we where you exhibit breathtaking and laughable ignorance. To make things crystal clear even for you, AGW is a hypothesis, which contends that the global mean temperature is increasing and this is predominantly due to anthropogenic activities. All of which is supported by a number of observations including actual temperature recordings, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, isotopic analysis of CO2, global retreat of glaciers, etc etc. What is not clear is your position regards global warming per se in the first instance and contribution to warming from anthropogenic activity in the second instance. I suspect that even you are not dumb enough to reject the former. You’ll probably ignore all this Science that's to follow - afterall you've done so thus far- but if you do come back please provide references for your assertions. As if……………..

Now for some bloodletting: YOURS

…“The fact is that there has been no measured increase for a decade. Not even AGW proponents deny this. The last decade was the warmest only because of the warming that occurred ten years previously.”…
This is demonstrably untrue as the earth has continued to absorb heat energy (1). I have assumed you are using 1998 as baseline. Due to annual variation in surface temperature taking one (cherry picked) year as a baseline and then concluding that surface temp has not increased subsequently is misleading. Why not 1997 or 1999? You should know better than to extrapolate from one data point from a noisy dataset. Statistically Eleven year moving averages show that the warming trend continues unabated (2). The trend continues upwards in spite of the 1998 measurement, which incidentally coincided with El Nino. Furthermore, two of the temperature records (NASA GISS and NCDC) conclude that 2005, not 1998, is actually the hottest year on record.

…”Secondly, the alleged hockey stick of increasing temperature has been shown to only be tenable if you ignore two entire periods of warm and cold exceptions within the historical record.”…
Oh dear, the proverbial hockey stick and I didn’t even mention it. Mann’s original hockey stick has been independently assessed and shown to be correct in that 20th century warming is unprecedented in the last 600 years (3). Moreover, there have been many independent analyses using different proxies and methodologies, all of which confirm the original findings. Measured temp in the 20th century exceeds that of all proxies for the last 1700 years (4).

…”Thirdly, the crucial Siberian tree-ring proxy data which is used to support the contention is based solely upon ELEVEN trees selected out of a sample group pf TWO HUNDRED, to include only those which support the contention.”…
Crucial, did you say? So all of radiative physics, climate history, the instrumental record, modeling and satellite observations turn out to be based on a few trees in an obscure part of Siberia. No substance to your allegation (derived from McIntyre no doubt); your comment is bollocks but remove the tree ring data if you like. It doesn’t make a difference, there are proxies from ice cores, stalagmites, lake sediments etc which independently affirm the proxy temperature record and independently show unprecedented warming in the 20th century (3,5).

…”Fourthly, the period of greatest increase in CO2 emissions corresponds with a period of cooling. You might fall back on the aerosal conjecture as a defence but that only demonstrates the Lakotian critique of "defensive belts of subordinate hypothesese". i.e., it would prove my point tabout AGW being circular”...
What are you talking about here? Do you even understand your own outpourings? AGW might be circular or even contradictory only if it is assumed that CO2 is the only forcing. Of course it isn’t and as you should know examination of past climate in relation to CO2 and warming should be contextualised i.e. what other climate forcings might play a role. CO2 has been much higher in the past and on occasion this has coincided with glaciation i.e. the Phanerozoic. In this time period solar activity was 4% below what it is now. A study examining the combined effect of solar activity and CO2 reveals that cooler periods in this era coincide with relatively low levels of CO2 for the time period (6). Why not instead focus on more recent times when CO2 was at the level we find today and solar activity is comparable. What do we find? It’s the middle miocene 15 million years ago. CO2 is approx 400 ppm and we find global temperatures were 5-10 degrees (oF) higher, sea-level 75-120 feet higher, no permanent sea ice in Arctic and little ice in Antarctica and Greenland. The authors conclude ‘geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history’ (7).

…”Fifthly, even were the alleged increase in temperature as claimed, that tells us nothing about the validity or otherwise of a given explanation”...
That mean global temperature has increased is an indisputable fact based on measured observations. Who says that said measurement tells us something about the explanation? Your fetid imagination and poor inferences? The measurements tell us the mean global temperature has risen – FACT. The rather separate issue of explanation for this observed fact, AGW theory,contends that CO2 from human activity is the main contributing factor. Solar activity has been flat for the last 30 years – FACT. Temperature rise has coincided with CO2 rise. It has been empirically shown that CO2 is a significant forcing on climate (8). Rising CO2 levels are due to human activity (9). Around 43% of anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed; the rest enters the atmosphere contributing to rising levels of CO2. Which bit of this don’t you get?

…”Sixthly, even the absence of a valid explanation for a contested phenomenon does not in itself validate an existing an invalid conjecture. Your logic is clearly completely potty on that…”
This reads like some post-modern nonsense. The phenomenon is generally not contested within climate science or by any Scientific Institute of note. Explanation is indeed valid as can be gleaned from hundreds of scientific publications. Which you appear to ignore, instead, citing the well known climate scientist Freeman Dyson. Undoubtedly a great physicist but why select his decidedly non-specialist views over the 100’s of specialists.

……"... melting glaciers, increased CO2 in the atmosphere etc...."
Christ, you really havent a clue have you, what you are talking about. Increased CO2 is allegedly the cause of AGW, not evidence for it occurring. Like I said before, you rant about our knowledge of the science but you obviously havent the foggiest idea about even this basic point….”
Increased CO2 is a cornerstone observation of AGW theory, without AGW theory is falsified – get it now!

..."You might be confusing glaciers with polar ice. I wouldnt imagine that except that you are obviously so utterly clueless that probably thats what you are groping towards referring to. Well, news again, there is less area of Arctic ice but it is increasing in thickness. Meanwhile, in the Antarctic, the west is losing ice but the East is gaining it. The area and thickness of ice in the East Antarctic is now greater than at any time since records began..."
You might be confusing the hearsay for the science. You are not even wrong, the magnitude of your ignorance appears to be boundless. Antarctic is losing LAND ice at an accelerating rate (10). You may appreciate that as it is the land ice melting that will contribute to sea-level rise, not sea ice. Unless you also question the principle of Archimedes! Even east Antarctica, previously thought to be in a stable ice mass balance, is starting to lose ice (11). Curiously, Antarctic SEA ice is increasing in mass in spite of warming ocean surroundings (12). As for the Arctic, ‘the mean thickness of ice over the Arctic Ocean has thinned from 2.6 meters in March 1987 to 2.0 meters in 2007’ (13).

Staggering that you have achieved a 1st class honours degree in Science given your appalling ignorance of this subject and the relevant literature. It goes without saying your qualification was not in Climate Science, more like a degree in Contrarian Science Fiction from an ex-Poly. Perhaps as an avowedly 'pre-doctoral scientist'you might try reviewing the scientific literature before spewing out your baseless hogwash for unquestioning consumption by like-minded morons here.

1. Murphy, D. M., S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster, and T. Wong (2009), An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D17107, doi:10.1029/2009JD012105.
2. WAITING FOR GLOBAL COOLING by Robert Fawcett and David Jones, National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia April 2008
3. Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence. Eugene R.Wahl • Caspar M. Ammann
4. Science. 2009 Nov 27;326(5957):1256-60. Global signatures and dynamical origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly.Mann ME, Zhang Z, Rutherford S, Bradley RS, Hughes MK, Shindell D, Ammann C, Faluvegi G, Ni F. Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
5. Pollack, H.N., S. Huang and P.-Y. Shen, "Climate change record in subsurface temperatures: a global perspective" Science, Volume 282, pp. 279-281. 1998.
6. CO2-Forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic. Dana L. Royer, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 70 (2006) 5665–5675.
7. Aradhna K. Tripati,1,2,* Christopher D. Roberts,2 Robert A. Eagle3, Science 4 December 2009: Vol. 326. no. 5958, pp. 1394 – 1397. Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years
8. W.F. J. Evans and E. Puckrin, Comparison of Solar Variability Effects with Surface Radiative Forcing of CO2, Adv. Space Res., 33, pp. 1073-1076, (2004).
9. Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research (2003). Prosenjit Ghosh, Willi A. Brand. International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 228:1-33.
10. Velicogna, I. (2009), Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19503, doi:10.1029/2009GL040222.
11. Nature Geoscience 2, 859–862 (1 December 2009) | doi:10.1038/ngeo694 Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from satellite gravity measurements. J. L. Chen , C. R. Wilson , D. Blankenship & B. D. Tapley.
12. Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions (2007). ZHANG, Journal of Climate 20:2515-2529. Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Laboratory, College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
13. Stroeve, J. ., M. Serreze, S. Drobot, S. Gearheard, M. Holland, J. Maslanik, W. Meier, and T. Scambos (2008), Arctic Sea Ice Extent Plummets in 2007, Eos Trans. AGU, 89(2), doi:10.1029/2008EO020001.

Dixon

"A thorn in your side
January 13th, 2010 7:07pm
Best to ignore most of your ill-educated rant.."

Because it demonstrated that you dont know a damn thing about science, let alone climate theories. As indicated by your laughable declaration that CO2 increase is a SIGN of rather than an alleged CAUSE of climate change.

Now you have apparently spent all day, whilst the rest of us have been working and your mates went to school as usual, cutting and pasting a load of guff written but OTHER people that you think will impress us, but which, basically, you dont understand yourself. Otherwise you would have not made the howlers that you did in your last post.

As I say, if you come here abusing people you should have the balls to defend yourself, not try to hijack what others write elsewhere.

As things stand, my previous reply remains unanswered. And if you think anyone who reads that comment is going to take you seriously then you really are an utter fool. You had your chance and you exhjibited your hollowness.

Who's the clown now then, eh!

DougS

I'm new to the Spectator and the Rod Liddle blog, having just registered today after following James Delingpole's link from his article in the Telegraph.

I love the Marcus Brigstocke weather reports, please keep them coming, I've laughed out loud at some of the witty comments from your readers.

However, one suggestion was that it was wearing a little thin. I agree that it should stop but only in accordance with IPCC/BBC rules, i.e just after the weather gets warmer!

John Holland

Dixon- All these evil scientists who are trying to take over the world; does this include all aspects of science,like gravity and stuff? Is it ALL a lie, or is it just the science that doesn't fit your politics? What are your ideas about quantum physics? The world is gagging to hear. Seriously, if all these nasty Marxist scientists lie about climate change for whatever evil agendas they conceil, they must, surely, be lying about other stuff. Maybe gravitational theory is just a plot to sell more shoe leather, I mean,why would AGW be the only tissue of rancid lies they've perpetrated? I can only thank the Lord that you know all this science stuff so you can explain the Truth to the rest of us. Thank you Dixon. And on behalf of my children, again, Thankyou. You are a Gallileo amongst monkeys.

Baron

Lupus, my friend, if it's true, good luck. The moderators are kicking me out. that's the reason for the delay. Cheer up, things are only to get better.

ROBERT TAGGART

THIS SNOW BRINGS OUT THE PETER PAN IN ALL OF US... OR EVEN THE SQUIRREL NUTKIN IN MOI !OH...YO... LUPO ! BEST WISHES. WE ALL MISS YOU. HOPE YOUR WAGON STAYS ON THE RAILS !

Roger Dodger

Have any of them managed to blame the earthquake in Haiti on Climate Change yet?

John Holland

Ho Ho, yes, that's a good one Rog! Really good. Here's another one; Has anyone blamed, like, er, me missing my train on climate change yet? Your'e a funny man, and more to the point Roger, your'e a clever man.I thought science was difficult, but now I know, thanks to you, it's very, VERY simple. Say something else clever, go on....

Number 7

Roger Dodger

Looks like you were right!!!!

http://www.climategate.com/danny-glover-blames-haiti-earthquake-on-climate-change

Roger Dodger

They we go. Danny Glover has already tried to shift some earthquake sympathy over to climate change.

Knew it had to happen.

Roger Dodger

Oh, thanks Number 7, just read your post.

"John Holland"

Any apologies for the rampant and unfunny sarcasm?

Perhaps you can just enjoy the permanence of your comment on here and thus the lasting evidence of your folly.

john holland

Dixon- just read your brilliant refutation of Thorn in your side's closely argued and annotated post. Your response; "it's all wrong ner ner who's the clown now" was a landmark piece of scientific reasoning.
Here's my response to String Theory; It's all poo and they smell.
Have you thought about submitting a paper laying out your findings or do the journals not accept submissions in crayon?

Old Slaughter

@John Holland

Ah ha, John, I see now. You are all about the science.

Please explain the science behind Al Gore's claim that there will be no ice in the Arctic within 6 years.

If you can then your lofty and sarcastic output will be studied earnestly by me. If you cannot, you prove that the 'science' is only a part of this debate. The propaganda and reasons for it a something else all together.

So I now await to be educated regarding your reasoning behind these claims.

Good luck.

Stevie

!