Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[convert]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8483722.stm

 

The most alarming forecasts of natural systems amplifying the human-induced greenhouse effect may be too high, according to a new report.

 

The study in Nature confirms that as the planet warms, oceans and forests will absorb proportionally less CO2.

...

 

The IPCC's fourth assessment report had a broad range of estimates as to how far natural systems would contribute to a spiral of warming. The Nature paper narrows that range to the lower end of previous estimates.

 

So perhaps it's not as bad as the IPCC (and others) would have us believe.

[Lockjaw]

I think he was referring to an Indian government report which was criticising him.

 

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/pachauri-calls-indian-govt-report-on-melting-himalayan-glaciers-as-voodoo-science_100301232.html

 

Assuming that article is accurate then he was referring to questioning of the glacier prediction.

 

A perfect example of arrogance and off-hand dismissal of opposing points of view.

 

Seems, somehow, familiar...

 

It also demonstrates the danger of considering yourself to be armed with enough facts to know you're right when those "facts" have come from other people.... and, of course, the danger of considering yourself oh-so-superior to all the opposers of your view when the debate is about the future outcome of a vastly complex set of causes.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Lockjaw

[Lockjaw]

The study in Nature confirms that as the planet warms, oceans and forests will absorb proportionally less CO2.

 

Am I being thick here?

 

 

Edit .... Just read the article ... turns out I was.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Lockjaw

[Wildcat]

Errrr

 

"...'We are not going to take the easy way out. It would be profoundly irresponsible thing to do. The science is clear and settled and we will push on, as will other countries, to get an agreement that is consistent with the science....'

 

my bold...Ed Milliband at Copenhagen

 

http://centralcontent.fco.gov.uk/central-content/campaigns/act-on-copenhagen/central-content-website/010-ambition/achievements/december/ed-miliband-world-is-watching

 

And he's not the only one....

 

Are you really struggling so much with the idea that the big picture can be settled, but the details still open for debate?

[Wildcat]

Do we know if this quote is correctly attributed? That is, was he referring specifically to questioners of the glacier prediction?

 

Wildcat ... you tend to have thoroughly researched such things ... do you know?

 

I am afraid not. I have assumed his response was spontaneous to a question directed to him at Copenhagen by a reporter or something. In which case his response was not at all unexpected and precisely what you would want and expect from someone leading an organisation, namely an instinctive defence of his organisation and the people working form him. In this particular case his faith was unfortunately misplaced, but I really can't understand all the hysteria over it. If every representative of an organisation was told to resign over a mistake of detail there would not be any. The important point is that the mistake was investigated and corrected without any whitewash.

[Wildcat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8483722.stm

 

So perhaps it's not as bad as the IPCC (and others) would have us believe.

 

Perhaps, but that is not what the article said.

 

Also, and on the contrary since the IPCC report ignored the impact of melting ice sheets on its predictions of sea level rise, the concern is that as we learn more about the accelerating melt, their conclusions could be a significant underestimation, according to this article from Yale university:

 

Their prediction of a 2 foot rise in sea level looks very low and planning assumptions of a 7 foot rise in the next century would be much better based on the evidence.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2230

 

Whilst the impact on the Acrtic Tundra is worrying:

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2229

 

It pales in to insignifance compared with the impact on human lives:

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2234

Edited January 28, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

Looks like Andrew Niel at the BBC is wading in on the fun now on his daily politics blog

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/

Finally its good to see someone at the BBC reporting properly. The start of things to come?

 

Hardly an unbiassed report is it?

 

There is no alternative view presented to his own, no expert opinion involved.

 

If there had been, then someone might have pointed out to him that the IPCC's report is commonly considered to be conservative and despite "Glaciergate" the melting of the arctic ice sheets was never factored in to their predictions of rising sea level rise. His gleeful report misleads and gives a completely contrary impression to reality.

 

Hopefully when the BBC reviews its reporting, examples of poor journalism like this article, will become a thing of the past. And the sad old man can be put out to pasture.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

Convert you asked around 1 Jan how hot 2009 was.

 

Well the results are in, it was the second hottest year in the last 135 years, second only to 2005, a full 1.0°F warmer than the 1951-1980 base period:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/2009-temperatures-by-jim-hansen/

[convert]

Thanks for that Wildcat, however realclimate isn't exactly an impartial site is it.

 

Jim Hansen doesn't appear to be whiter than white either (he might be greener than green though)

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023339/james-hansen-would-you-buy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man/

Especially when he has been described as an activist and an embarassment by his former course Supervisor @ NASA; Dr John Theon.

 

I'll let some people far more qualified than me take a look at the data (not Hansens interpretaion of it) and get back to you.

[Wildcat]

Thanks for that Wildcat, however realclimate isn't exactly an impartial site is it.

 

Jim Hansen doesn't appear to be whiter than white either (he might be greener than green though)

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023339/james-hansen-would-you-buy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man/

Especially when he has been described as an activist and an embarassment by his former course Supervisor @ NASA; Dr John Theon.

 

I'll let some people far more qualified than me take a look at the data (not Hansens interpretaion of it) and get back to you.

 

Except Dr John Theon was never his supervisor, infact no one knew who he was until he wrote that piece. He retired in the 1990s well before Hansen said NASA were suppressing him.

 

Delingpole regurgitating more smears, half truths (if that) and rubbish without checking his facts.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/so_who_is_john_s_theon.php

 

It really doesn't take long to do a quick check of the background. Why are journalists like Delingpole so unable to do the basics? Wishful thinking or deliberate lieing?

 

If denialists have such a strong case why do they resort to lies all the time?

Edited January 29, 2010 by Wildcat