justdata.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/step-by-step-debunking-climate-change/

as opposed to fancy subscription-only journals then I’d give them a lot more credence.

For most of the history of the planet it has been much warmer.

So when the planet gets warmer and there is more co2 all hell will break loose and we will all die?
I don’t think so.

If it was so bad every time the climate gets warmer there would be a mass extinction but there is no correlation.

The problem with the alarmists is they don’t know enough science to understand the consequences of global warming.

Also, if runaway global warming was possible it would have already happened and we would not be here.

Global warming is real and it’s almost all good.

The current conventional wisdom on climate change is based on a small increase in global temperature, extrapolated over a long period of time. If its not “Bad Science” its certainly “Weak Science”. If scientists vigorously pursue the case for intervention, they weaken their own position of impartiality.

I am in favour of creating a sustainable future, but this can only happen if the population of the globe is convinced we are on the right track. This is a mammoth task, which needs to be moved forward slowly & surely. Creating dodgy doomsday scenarios will inevitably lead to a backlash, which will delay the process.

It is simpler to convince people that breathing rubbish in the atmosphere is unhealthy and needs to be curtailed. There is widespread incidence of asthma, and the point can be easily made and is difficult for anyone to counter.

while you were away, a man who works in an organisation wasn’t very stylish about correcting a small error.

b

Anyway, I’m back now and I thought I’d pop in here to just, y’know, see if anything of note has happened on the climate change issue while I’ve been away.

I’m sure it hasn’t, after all the issue is settled beyond all doubt (as an overwhelming majority of scientists overwhelmingly agree), but just in case I’ve missed anything, can you update me?

Cheers.

Having contrary to prevailing ideas that are giggled and snickered at by the populace makes me feel clever? That notion always irritates me, as it forgets the price I’ve paid to be skeptical of the majority views.

Can’t a man ask how Usama bin Laden, who reportedly died at a US hospital in Dubai in late December 2001 is still issuing Jihadist rhetoric without uncomfortable smiles of displeasure? Not really. Try getting a promotion or laid with questions like this swimming around in your head. It’s been most stressful.

More on Usama for the statistics buffs. Before Sept. 11, 2001 his recorded statements included on average 400 religious references per hour. Since that time, his average fell immediately to around 20. But what does that have to do with 9/11. Nothing really.

My advice is to maintain a life of fact-finding, and withhold any conclusions. That is unless you are within arms reach of Dick Cheney. In that case, by all means do what comes naturally.

In reply to:
#190.bodenca and
#253.quasilobachevski,
December 28, 2009 at 5:56 pm
who said:
“I’m not making a scientific argument, I’m asking you to substantiate your assertion that CRU destroyed raw data.
So far, I have only seen evidence that CRU lost data that was also stored elsewhere (at the Met Office), and for which the Met Office (rather than the CRU) were responsible. This seems very different from your claim (although I don’t think anyone would dispute that it would be preferable if the data were published in an accessible format).”

See this video made prior to climategate.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpmrGoi2JRo
In passing, note Jones’s response in 2004 to a request for data:
“Even if WMO [World Meteorological Organization] agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

But to confuse matters, see Realclimate (The AGW) blog at: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
38Jay says:
20 November 2009 at 1:54 PM
Again, I write to the moderator. What did I write that was so inflammatory that you would not post it? I have not attempted to stir anything up? I would like to know the truth. Thats all. The truth needs no moderation nor to be covered up. What is wrong with my saying that? Maybe you can post this and a response as I don’t see what could possibly be wrong with this post.
My only questions now is…
I hear a lot about the FOIA and data that was being withheld that is now lost or destroyed. Is there an explanation or a reference to that which would answer what I have been hearing on the other end?
[Response: No data has been lost or destroyed. - gavin]
(The response given here is presumably by Gavin Schmidt.)

Then this newspaper report 9 days later reporting that CRU scientists admit that the raw data was destroyed:
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

It would be difficult to summarize more succinctly (or brutally) the state of “consensus” climate science than has John Smith’s comment on January 04, 2010
at 06:05 AM at: www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6924898/The-Met-Office-gives-us-the-warmist-weather.html

“David Welch – the methodology of climate change science is as follows:

1. start with a (preferably apocalyptic) desired result
2. select data to support the desired result, ignore or destroy data that does not support the desired result
3. create models to predict the desired result – when the predictions turn out to be incorrect, obscure the predictions
4. destroy or lose the unmanipulated raw data so that there is no possibility of independent (in)validation”

to which I can add subverting peer review, look at this sorry tale written from first-hand experience & revealed by the climategate emails:
www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

As stated by many above who have contributed comments to this blog (very sensible comments, including Michael leahy, Tetenterre, markus82, Prospero, Ben Pile, Tyversky, Nomark, Squander Two, throg, DougieJ) we are hugely disappointed by Ben Goldacre’s treatment of this important topic.

I especially appreciated #202.carpsio December 17, 2009 at 2:32 pm, who said:
“Ah… the irony of coming to this blog and finding that even Ben Goldacre – a man I *worship* for his attempts to bring rationality to science coverage in this country – has fallen into step with the ’scientific consensus.’ … You. Are. Wrong.”

Bad Science Antiphrasis of the Year Awards, 2009:

1= “Climate sceptic”.
1= “Computer scientist”.

?

You are a man of science. You are also correct in saying that lack of trust in government is also playing a role in the growing numbers of the anti-global warming crowd.

We are too dependent on petroleum. In that case, let’s remove the subsidies we give this industry – including the subsidies that fund their ‘green’ research and consider allowing the entrepreneurs to get us out of this mess.

Over a century ago the world was running out of ‘whale oil’. The world panicked over how they were going to enjoy indoor lighting. SOLUTION: A man by the name John D. Rockefeller who hired an R&D crew to create a by-product called Kerosene.

Incase you case interested. I have not owned a car since 2000. I do not fill the void in my life with extravagant purchases but with good coffee at Monmouth, good company, a terrific career, good conversation and a family to die for.

Ben, the debate is not over. I am an intelligent, educated man and incase you’re wondering, I am not a pawn of the oil industry.

Solutions..or atleast a step in the right direction.. I still adore you Ben but please read on.

1) End Subsidies to oil companies and you’ll see a sudden surge in innovation that makes the ones of the past 2 decades seem paltry in comparison. Patent laws are what’s killing us, not CO2/warming/ climate skeptics (or whatever other label we are pinned with)

2) Stop threatening developing countries with trade wars if they don’t comply. that will lead to a real environmental disaster.

3) I wish everyone a terrific 2010 – my girlfriend wants me to come to bed…sorry. — I wrote the solutions portion lastly by the way.

This is not medicine where things are relatively simple – it works or it doesn’t and one knows in a relatively short period.

Climate science is a science based on predictions and those predictions are based on computer models, which are supposedly based on past events, where the scientist tries to predict future events. By its very nature, this is unpredictable because future or unforeseen events may change or one may find that the evidence gained from past events was flawed. For example witness the met office trying to predict the weather. How often, in your own experience, are they right?

I’m not a climate scientist so I can’t comment on the validity of the science but I am a computer scientist and if the model that was leaked on the internet from the East Anglia climate research centre is the model used then I think it is questionable and at the minimum should be investigated to validate the method used.

I’m not making a scientific argument, I’m asking you to substantiate your assertion that CRU destroyed raw data.

So far, I have only seen evidence that CRU lost data that was also stored elsewhere (at the Met Office), and for which the Met Office (rather than the CRU) were responsible. This seems very different from your claim (although I don’t think anyone would dispute that it would be preferable if the data were published in an accessible format).

I don’t see how asking you to back up your own assertion is question-begging.

Sorry for accusing you of mendacity (I assume that’s the false dichotomy you allude to) – that was over the top, I admit. But surely you can see that it’s frustrating when you make such strong claims and then back them up with such flimsy evidence?

We can continue this when you have learned and understood the meanings of /petitio principii/ and /false dichotomy/ and their implications for the validity of a scientific argument.

(Additional clues: (a) CRU did destroy raw data (b) CRU staff did encourage others to destroy data (c) MetOffice has not yet recompiled the raw data so its current status is functionally indistinguishable from “destroyed”.)

General point:

I was recently reading a rather good book on science and I came across a few statements, made in relation to a different topic but which are, I submit, pertinent to any scientific enquiry:

“…they don’t tell you how they randomised … This is a classic warning sign…” (Briffa’s cherry-picked tree rings?)

“…it’s important that research is always published, in full, with its methods and results available for scrutiny. (…) In fact, as a general rule, it’s always worth worrying when people don’t give you sufficient details about their methods…” (Mann et al, CRU, etc. refusing to release full details; upward “corrections” to temperature data; etc.?)

I sincerely hope your absurd mischaracterisations of the process of science and the nature of scientific consensus are not taught in high schools.

www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_misinformation_galileo.html

Recently we have had , The hole in the ozone layer, SARS Chicken flu, swine flu, asian flu, Aids, as a threat to everyone in the UK, the millenium bug and lots more we have all forgotten. None of them have ever proved to be true…

I’m amazed to read this.

Many of these were genuine threats – for instance, Parmageddon really could have happened. That all were averted can be ascribed partly to good luck, but also partly to effective action (preparing vaccines, promoting condom use, banning CFCs etc).

You seem to want to employ the following ridiculous line of reasoning: “Some dangers in the past have been averted, therefore we should ignore all dangers we can predict.”

*headdesk*

“The chief aim of science is not to open a door to infinite wisdom but to set a limit to infinite error” —Brecht, Galileo.

www.nature.com/climate/2009/0905/full/climate.2009.41.html

“So when people say they’re skeptical, a lot of them mean that they’re not sure whom to trust. Thus, the real question is: Is this mistrust well-founded?”

That’s spot on. I’m desperately trying to maintain a balance with my reading on this topic, trying to avoid sensationalism in place of real science etc. It really does seem to me that the honest answer is “we don’t know”.

That’s fair enough, but not good enough when the powers that be are proposing such drastic solutions that may cause more problems than they solve.