December 2010 was ‘almost certain’ to become the coldest since records began in 1910

FantomX

Linton wrote: »

Also what was mentioned on today's news - it may be cold here but it is unusually warm in other parts of the world (Canada, US West Coast, Med IIRC).

So the average temperature could well be err average, or even above average.

Such is the difference between climate and weather.

Err...such is the difference between the Sunday Sport and real news!

A._Badger

Linton wrote: »

Also what was mentioned on today's news - it may be cold here but it is unusually warm in other parts of the world (Canada, US West Coast, Med IIRC).

So the average temperature could well be err average, or even above average.

Such is the difference between climate and weather.

Once again, a common warmest claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Here's a view of it by Dr David Whitehouse, formerly the BBC's Science Correspondent (that was in the days before they started recruiting arts graduates, like the egregious Roger Harrabin)

http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/1973-2010-an-unexceptional-el-nino-year.html

Wookster

The yanks will just blame everything on BP won't they.

Hope my shares stay solid.

A._Badger

andykn wrote: »

You'd have to ask him, I only know about the science, like all the world's top economists, I'm equally clueless about economics.

All 5 minutes on Google will find you is an assortment of mutually contradictory "other sides" none backed up by any real evidence.

Otherwise you'd have posted some.

Science? What science? All we ever see are flawed computer models and appeals to authority - a device that was proved invalid a couple of thousand years ago.

Edenhofer well and truly let the IPCC's cat out of the bag. No amount of bluster can disguise it.

If people on this forum are seriously concerned by the economic state of this country, they should step back from fretting about what may or may not happen to house prices and pause to consider the wrecking of the British economy being planned by a political class in thrall to bogus science.

nickj_2

if i remember rightly , when global warming was invented around 20 yrs ago , the experts were claiming that we would end up with a climate like spain , i'm sure most people were thinking " remind me what the bad point is "
the fact is that the weather forecast can't predict what the weather is going to do next week so how they can tell what's going to happen in the future is questionable , already it's changed from global warming to climate changein just a few years , from where i'm sitting it feels like we're heading for another ice age

vaporate

This weather is nothing.

Frozen Britain...yeh right lol

Davesnave

Perhaps people here would do better to bicker less about the science and think what advantages they might gain from the money that will be thrown at energy production in the next 25 years. After all, this is MSE, not New Scientist.

For example, the Feed in Tariff will guarantee a return of 11%-20% on investment for the next quarter century for those who have signed-up and put their money on the table by April 2012. Looks better than buy to let from where I'm sitting.

FantomX

Oh dear...the following will upset Andykins and Limpton

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:#

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

andykn

FantomX wrote: »

Oh dear...the following will upset Andykins and Limpton

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/

No it won't:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/11/hal-lewis-resigns-from-the-american-physical-society/

Inconsequential would be the word, ridiculous hyperbole would be another two.

FantomX

andykn wrote: »

Inconsequential would be the word, ridiculous hyperbole would be another two.

LOL! Scraping the bottom of a barrel with that hockey stick eh?

Here's another to upset you:

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

“Global warming” is not a global crisis


We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend –

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.


That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008.

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1

Endorsers of the above statement: http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=1

All Endorsers: http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=1

Andykins was hoping I'd not pull the above out the hat! However, the above is before the leaked CRU emails that exposed the Climate Change/Global Warming/Cooling/ scam.

For those that are not aware of ClimateGate then check out this Video that also disucusses the "Mann" made Hockey Stick LOL!!!

And of course, the other scandal known as Satellitegate

Scientists Speak Out on Satellitegate Scandal

via CanadaFreePress.com
John O’Sullivan
August 15, 2010
US Government admits global warming satellite sensors “degraded” – temperatures may be out by 10-15 degrees. Now five satellites in controversy. Top scientists speak out.

In an escalating row dubbed ‘Satellitegate’ further evidence proves NOAA knew of these faults for years. World’s top climate scientists and even prior governmental reports cite underfunding and misallocation as the trigger for spiraling satellite data calamities. Key flaws with five satellites undermines global data.

Most disturbing of all is that it took publication of my article last week to persuade the authorities to withdraw the errant NOAA-16 satellite from service. But as Dr. John Christy indicates, the real Satellitegate is not about one satellite. The scandal is endemic with comparable flaws across the entire network; the scandal is also that it took a tip off from a member of the public and the widespread broadcast of my article before one of the offending junk boxes, NOAA-16, got taken down.

Readers who missed the details when this sensational story first broke can see here at Climatedepot.com.

:T