What Do We Think About Climate Change

[wardd]

of course all the melting glaciers don't say anything

[masalai]

Please leave glass blowers out of this debate, there are enough problems with Monica...

[Guillermo]

Here the "shortened" track to the papers I've presented, gathered by a said Andrew at Popular Technology:
http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html
From there you can download them all.

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

"As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the Council to revise its current statement on climate change as follows, so as to more accurately represent the current state of the science:

Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.

Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate.

The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes – natural and human – on the Earth’s climate and the biosphere’s response to climate change, and promotes technological options for meeting challenges of future climate changes, regardless of cause."

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...al_society.pdf

For the (today) 206 signants, see here: http://www.openletter-globalwarming....ignatures.html

Cheers.

[masalai]

Guillermo, That open letter should also be sent to all "environmental organisations in Australia"... I have no links in that sector, nor do I seem to be able to broach the "minder wall" of bureaucrats surrounding politicians... Useless bunch or retards in Government here... I hope you have better luck with your contacts / links / resources...

[jmolan]

I found this blog when I read this is the place where 62 mb of the bum emails were posted. (if you haven't heard of the emails you will soon)

Looks like this Blog spot is a place for anothother opinion to gather.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/200...#comment-12788

[Guillermo]

Thanks Jack.
From a letter posted in that blog, regarding the hacked e-mails from CRU:

"These serve to illustrate not that the scientists involved are engaged in fraudulent behavior for personal gain, but rather that they feel that it is their right or duty to be the gatekeepers of what information is allowed to be seen. I think it is clear that the scientists believe that they are correct. I think it is clear that they use this belief to justify actively engage in censoring their own results (and pressure others to censor theirs) to prevent full disclosure of the uncertainties involved in the methods they employ. I think it is clear that they use this belief to justify attempts to discredit legitimate criticisms, in some cases with the knowledge that those criticisms are accurate. I think it is clear that they use this belief to advocate suppressing free expression on the internet. I think it is clear that they use this belief to attempt to manipulate the peer review process to present their results in a way that lends more credibility to their conclusions than otherwise would be the case. This is advocacy, not science. It in no way invalidates AGW theory, but it does call into question the certainty with which these scientists claim to understand the magnitude of the AGW effect – and, by extension, the magnitude and timing of the anticipated consequences."

See the full thing at: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/200...tific-skeptic/

Cheers.

[masalai]

Guillermo, Do you feel this will have a significant impact at the Copenhagen meeting due very soon? (have I got the correct venue?)

[Guillermo]

I don't think so, Masa. Dices are on the air....
But my bet is that there will not arise a firm commitment at all from the Copenhague summit to reduce CO2 emissions. Just political blah, blah, blah.

Cheers.

[Pericles]

Guillermo,

Thinks are hotting up. CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA GISS

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/2...ss/#more-13153

I signed up.

You are now signed up to this petition. Thank you.

For news about the Prime Minister's work and agenda, and other features including films, interviews, a virtual tour and history of No.10, visit the main Downing Street homepage

If you'd like to tell your friends about this petition, its permanent web address is: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body. More details

Submitted by Mike Haseler – Deadline to sign up by: 24 February 2010 – Signatures: 202
More details from petition creator

The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is a “leading centre” for the investigation of “manmade global warming” and government policy relies on the integrity of these statistics. Several claims have been made: that data was “cherry picked” to make the 20th century temperature rise look exceptional in historical terms; emails suggest the unit has colluded in “tricks” to “hide the decline” in a high profile scientific journal, and this unit has colluded in active, secret and highly political campaigning through the website “realclimate”.

The preparation of climate statistics require many judgments: stations move & sites become surrounded by urban sprawl (urban heating) & a judgment must be made of the size of the offset to apply to the global temperature record. The University accepts most emails are genuine so it appears the Unit has been acting in a highly partisan way incompatible with that of a neutral body preparing and interpreting government data. We call on the PM to suspend all further use of the climate research unit until all pertinent allegations have been investigated and any action (if any) has been taken.

http://camirror.wordpress.com/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ked-emails-uea

http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/...-needs-to.html

http://algorelied.com/

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscoun...m-exclusive/2/

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-t...t-climategate/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6927598.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...globalwarming/

Paul Hudson at BBC had emails from 12th October.

"
'Climategate' - What next?

Paul Hudson | 20:02 UK time, Tuesday, 24 November 2009

Comments (9)

Like many of you I've been watching the story at the University of East Anglia develop with interest. I first became aware of the news late last week, but because of my weather and filming commitments couldn't deal with it myself and so passed the news on to some of my colleagues in the BBC's environment and science team, including our environment analyst Roger Harrabin who wrote about it on saturday morning, and Newsnight, who covered the story last night.

As you may know, some of the e-mails that were released last week directly involved me and one of my previous blogs, 'Whatever happened to global warming ?'

These took the form of complaints about its content, and I was copied in to them at the time. Complaints and criticisms of output are an every day part of life, and as such were nothing out of the ordinary. However I felt that seeing there was an ongoing debate as to the authenticity of the hacked e-mails, I was duty bound to point out that as I had read the original e-mails, then at least these were authentic, although of course I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the others.

There are clearly some very serious issues that arise from the information that has been released. Some people are suggesting that spin has infiltrated science. Others worry that there are suggestions that the peer review process has been compromised and those with contrary views are being frozen out. There are issues regarding data; how has it been used? But those scientists that are convinced that man is responsible for global warming are troubled that all this takes attention away from the real issue here: that action is needed to be taken from the world's biggest polluters to cut carbon dioxide emissions. This was certainly the message that came across the morning, in this story on our science website.

How will this all be resolved? Momentum does seem to be growing, from people on both sides of the argument, behind calls for a full independent enquiry that can once and for all get to the bottom of the many issues that have been raised. A recent survey showed that climate scepticism in this country is growing, and this episode may increase it further. Some would say that an enquiry is the only way to bring clarity to the science of global warming and climate change that has enormous implications for all of us.

* Bookmark with:
* del.icio.us |
* Digg |
* Newsvine |
* NowPublic |
* Reddit
* - What's this?

'Climategate' - CRU hacked into and its implications

Paul Hudson | 13:07 UK time, Monday, 23 November 2009

Comments (83)


Very busy with forecast duties right now, but I do intend to write a blog regarding the UK Climate research centre (CRU) being hacked into, and the possible implications of this very serious affair.

I will add comment on this page as soon as I can free up some time. But I will in the meantime answer the question regarding the chain of e-mails which you have been commenting about on my blog, which can be seen here, and whether they are genuine or part of an elaborate hoax.

I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article 'whatever happened to global warming'. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.

More later. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/

[masalai]

Well done Guillermo and Pericles,

I hope things progress with due honesty for a change... Take care...

Economics events also seem to be heading for a major "event"... - My guess is the fall of the US$ and the GB pound - offset by the rise of gold bullion and collapse of many who hold "paper gold", gold derivatives, or not fully backed ETF products...

[hoytedow]

It is about time those charlatans were exposed. Hurrah!

[fasteddy106]

Some new commentary from JoNova on Climate Gate


http://joannenova.com.au/2009/11/the...ased-on-fraud/

[Guillermo]

Just published.

Have a look at page 22 within this magazine:
http://www.rutapesquera.com/rp77.pdf

This is a shortened version of the original article I wrote and was published at the Spanish Naval Engineering Magazine in June.

Cheers.

[Pericles]

La falacia del calentamiento global antropogénico

The fallacy of man made global warming.

Best regards,

Perry