The 10:10 Climate Change Pledge. Will you be signing up?

Volcano

thescouselander wrote: »

So in essence Briffa acknowlages there are issues that warrent looking into.

NO! He's saying he'll look at McIntyres analysis to see if the conclusion is valid.

I think to suggest that McIntyre isn't respected by reputable people is ridiculous - he certainly got the attention of the US congress and has been proved correct on many occsions even if he has been wrong at other tiimes.

That he's frequently wrong, addresses his concerns indirectly through his ever-changing blog and doesn't publish his work isn't a 'personal attack', it's just the facts! If he wishes to be taken seriously by serious people then he's going the wrong way about it. Again, why is his work only reported by puerile journalists?

With regards to peer review - I think the system has its problems, clearly things seem to slip through. One problem is that many of the peers are vary close to the work and group think can set in; they are also not motivated to find fault in a theory which provides them with research funding.

Unsubstantiated assumptions! There's plenty of competition between scientists who are all too ready to pull up one another on their mistakes. Mistakes can slip through though and that's why avenues exist to address them. No policy is ever decided on a single paper.

One has to wonder why there isn't a paid group of professionals outside of the climate change science comunity that audit the work of the IPCC scientists and look for mistakes - for example statistitions that could check the proper application of statistical processes.

If there was evidence to suggest that the peer review process was failing, that statistics were analysed incorrectly and something was consistantly amiss, then of course. But this isn't the case.

thescouselander

Volcano - you have yourself made personal attacks against the journalist at the Telegraph and Steve McIntyre on this thread. The fact that McIntyre was invited to give evidence to the US congress and the fact he has made a significant contribution to IPCC papers proves he is respected in many quarters. As for the Telegraph journalist, he just reported the facts, all be it in a sensationalist tone, yet you accuse him of poor journalism. There is no proof of any wrongdoing by either of them.

The latest episode in the hockey stick debacle is a bad day for science. The peer review process for climate change science has been called into question. But in any case, so what if McIntyre's work hasn't been submitted for peer review - this whole controversy started precisely because Briffra withheld his data from peer review - the process is clearly broken.

McIntyre's claims should have been easy to counter. Briffra should have the methodology he used to select the tree samples at his finger tips but this information remains undisclosed. In fact, this methodology should have been detailed in the work he originally published - why did this not happen and why was it not picked up at peer review?

It all looks very bad and I am not the only person to think this. Answers have not been forthcoming and the circumstances around the whole incident are very suspicious. At best it looks like poor practise at worst dishonesty - on an issue of such importance its simply not good enough.

Volcano

There's basically no issue here.

Despite your original post stating there had been "interesting revelations" (so interesting that they were squirreled away in blogs) and "serious questions have been raised" (again only in the aforementioned), it appears that this isn't the case. No wonder you had to provide links!

Even: "regarding the famous Hockey stick graph and how it could be seriously flawed." is also overly dramatic, given that the complete removal of tree-ring data matters not a jot to complementary data gathered from completely different sources.

thescouselander wrote:

As for the Telegraph journalist, he just reported the facts

This: How the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie is a 'fact'?

Cardew

bunce2 wrote: »

A small, personal action can make a difference because it acts as an encouragement to others - and I'm thinking of potential policymakers in particular here. For instance, installing a solar hot water system in your home might only help to reduce global carbon emissions in a very small way - and might seem to be cancelled out by a big polluting Chinese coal-fired power station - but it will prompt friends and neighbours to consider doing the same and will enable a politician attending the Copenhagen Summit in December 09 to say that there is popular demand for a greener world and challenge other countries to take the bigger measures that are needed in the long run. You can find out more about solar hot water systems at xxxxxx. Whatever a country's climate, the technology is there to cover up to 80% of a household's annual hot water requirements..

You have made 4 posts all spam for one solar firm where I suspect you work!!

thescouselander

Ah, this is classic. You cannot refute any of the claims so you had to resort to personal attacks and eventually go on to claim none of it matters anyway. I can only take this to be an indication that its all true.

sharkyward1965

I have signed up to 10:10. By getting my cavity wall insulation filled in by WarmFront my energy bill has already reduced by 11% and the house is already warmer! Further, I bike to work too, saving the planet and getting fitter as well. Having fitted energy saving light bulbs (many of which are free - check HOTUKDEALS freebies or even this one here) other savings have been made. Next, to fit draught excluders around the front door and then, hopefully, we won't have to put the heating on till nearer Xmas.:money:

elephant-astic

thescouselander wrote: »

So in essence Briffa acknowlages there are issues that warrent looking into.

I think to suggest that McIntyre isn't respected by reputable people is ridiculous - he certainly got the attention of the US congress and has been proved correct on many occsions even if he has been wrong at other tiimes. Its a pitty the AGW community has to resort to personal attacks when the hear something they dont like - it is not the behaivour becoming a group of supposedly professional people.

With regards to peer review - I think the system has its problems, clearly things seem to slip through. One problem is that many of the peers are vary close to the work and group think can set in; they are also not motivated to find fault in a theory which provides them with research funding.

One has to wonder why there isn't a paid group of professionals outside of the climate change science comunity that audit the work of the IPCC scientists and look for mistakes - for example statistitions that could check the proper application of statistical processes. They could be incentiveised through bonuses paid when mistakes are identified. Its I technique I have used myself on certain scientific studies with some success.

Perhaps then we could get away from childish charicter assassination and focus on the facts.

I think you make a fair point, that there should be more openess, and peer review on both sides of the debate. The only problem I see is that if you had auditors who were incentivised to find mistakes they'd also need to audited, in turn, to keep them honest; "Who watches the watchman?"

Volcano

thescouselander wrote: »

I can only take this to be an indication that its all true.

I'm not surprised, you have made wilder assumptions based on flimsier evidence after all.

Oh well, at least this has illuminated some of the more bizarre bits of 'information' out there.

rhiwfield

Some of the logic on here seems to be as follows

• global warming isnt happening
• if it is happening it may be beneficial to some
• if it is happening it has nothing to do with man
• if it is to do with man there is nothing individuals can do that could make any difference
• even if individuals could make a difference just cutting emissions wont be enough

Believers and sceptics clash with quotes from here/there to support their own set of beliefs, as you would expect on a forum.

But take the following scenario, which I believe mirrors mainstream government and scientific thinking: global warming is happening, it will cause mainly negative impacts, it is man made and collective individual action in cutting emissions will reduce the negative impacts.

IF that scenario is correct, and we do nothing, where does that leave us? Probably at the high end of government risk projections and a pretty bleak future for our children. While I agree that overpopulation must be tackled as part of the measures it also makes sense to consider what action can be taken to prevent the profligate use of finite resources, which will entail developed countries cutting back on rampant consumerism. From an ethical viewpoint it is difficult to justify current levels of materialistic consumption. Perhaps those who want the third world to enjoy our current level of consumption might consider whether it would be more appropriate for us to meet them half way?

So will we sign up for 10:10. Probably not, it seems to be well intentioned if a bit gimmicky. But will we continue to actively reduce our carbon footprint and use of finite resources, definitely yes. And at the same time I will work as an individual, and with local government and other organisations to try to reduce (our species) negative impacts on wildlife on our patch under the UKBAP mechanisms.

MothballsWallet

IPCC = all the world's environmentalists agreeing with each other on everything.
Even one of the founders of Greenpeace left because they were getting too political and losing their core focus.
Friends of the Earth deny that an increasing world population is a problem, and will affect resource consumption, and therefore climate change.