Saturday
Apr092011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Light blogging
Apr 9, 2011 Blogs It's half term at the moment and I've headed for the beach. Blogging will therefore be light.
Apr 9, 2011 Blogs 
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Apr 26 - HenryOliver
on
The Benefits of Using Tutorbin for Custom Writing Services -
Apr 24 - harryjkevin91
on
Seeking Help With Dissertation
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (31)
\it appears The Guardian appears to be slowly cutting down on allowing comments on the environment and climate change blogs, has anyone else noticed? Is this as sign that they are preparing to change their stance? (doubt it). Are they scared that the arguments that rage on the blogs, usually won by the sceptics, if there is such a thing as winning in a slanging match, are turning the luke-warmers to sceptics? Or are they just trying to deny sceptics the "oxygen of publicity" because it's dawned on them that they have been had? (I doubt it too). Anyway comments seem to have been all but stopped.
I think they're changing from "CiF" to just "C-F". When you can't win the debate, the only alternative is to close it down or prevent it from occurring.
Have a good family holiday.
The beach? Not in Scotland in April, surely..?
Must be Global Warming, James. I remember the days when we had the coldest December for 100 years...oh, that was only last year. Climate Disruption, then.
Geromimo, have you had difficulty getting your comments posted on the Guardian’s CIF recently? I had no problem back in December (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/02/cancun-climate-change-summit-monbiot?commentpage=12#start-of-comments) when Montbiot was moaning about the “Cancún climate change summit: Is God determined to prevent a deal?”. I haven’t tried since those exchanges.
Andrew’s last “Light Blogging” thread (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/28/light-blogging.html?currentPage=4#comments) finished off with my comment to GrantB. I had a ferret around for GrantB but couldn’t find anything worth reading, not even here in Bishop Hill. All that I could find was his nit-picking about spellings like Maroochidor and “satricial” (Sep 13th at 1:35 PM on http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/9/13/quickfire-bob.html?currentPage=`2). I wonder it he/she was looking in the mirror when saying to ZedsDeadBed on Sep 13, 2010 at 2:31 PM “You really should turn your hand to something else. You're lost here” and at 2:54 PM “Perhaps you could try sitting down and changing your posture”?
But what am I doing, supporting Zeds? Only a year ago I was saying to him QUOTE: ZedsDeadBed, providing the names of a few organisations is not the same thing as providing scientific evidence. If you have any then please join the “Open Debate on the "Significant Human-made Global Climate Change" Hypothesis” at the Sustainable Development Commission. There is no restriction on the number of characters so you can put your argument clearly if you have one. All that you are doing here is repeating political and environmentalist propaganda. It is a fact, acknowledged by the majority of scientists involved, that the processes and drivers of global climates are poorly understood, so much so that it is impossible to reliably predict future climate change. So, let us debate it properly. I repeat my previous comment “It is time for you to put up or shut up”. .. 13/1/2010 19:57 on http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242202/Could-30-years-global-COOLING.html#ixzz1IIRrdunr).
You and I are on the same side regarding the CACC nonsense, aren’t we? UNQUOTE.
Another who is on this same side is Barry Woods, but Barry claims to be “ .. a big fan of JO .. ” (that’s Jo Abbess, who bats for the other side). Barry seemed to think that I was unreasonable in contacting Jo Abbess by E-mail with a “Private & Confidential” piece of information regarding a comment that had been placed on her blog. He commented “Pete.. I'm a big fan of JO, she doesn't censor her blog.. Just because you send her an email maarked 'private and confidential' why the hell should she listen to it.. If some cyber stalker/bully or just anonymous stranger did that to me ' as you said 'uninivited' I would feel under no obligation to do so.. Please NOTE, Jo printed his comments, where he criticised her about the 'privately' bit” (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/28/light-blogging.html?currentPage=4#comments).
I pointed out to Barry that Jo and I had been exchanging opinions for a while before my P&C E-mail and that Jo had invited anyone on her blog to contact her by E-mail or ‘phone, all of which appears to me to render the points in his comment irrelevant. I invited him both on that blog and on his own to consider whether or not he might owe me an apology. The only response that I have had is “Barry Woods says: April 9, 2011 at 1:21 pm I’ve been busy and haven’t looked at my blog.. and to be hoonest haven’t given anyhing any thought…. ” (http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/03/it-is-good-to-have-a-debate/#comment-1575).
Barry does not come across to me as really being a big fan of Jo but maybe I have read his exchanges with her through prejudiced eyes (http://www.joabbess.com/2010/04/13/james-delingpole-warmly-invited/). Relating to what Geronimo said in the opening comment here, Barry complained on that thread of Jo’s “Guardian – well they will NOT let me say anything on comment is free.. ” but that was way back in April 2010. This was not a view shared by all. Dan Wright said on April 15th, 2010 at 02:38 “Barry – you’re like a teenager claiming it’s impossible to find free popcorn on the internets. But it is not impossible – it’s really, really easy...”. I certainly had no trouble posting my opposing opinions there then, so perhaps Dan was correct.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I think Barry is a "fan" of Jo Abbess only insofar as she does not censor comments no matter how adverse. A quick glance at his comments on her site shows that there is no meeting of minds (I'm glad to say)
There is a fascinating report on the complaint by UEA to the Press Complaints Commission concerning several James D's Telegraph blogs, currently posted up and headlining at the GWPF homepage. The Bishop's report on the UEA reviews is mentioned. It basically seems to be that the Commission accepts the practice of robust comment on controversial topics like climate change in blog columns where the context of the authors views was clearly apparent to the readership, in the interests of free speech.
http://www.thegwpf.org/best-of-blogs/2783-climategate-university-of-east-anglia-v-the-daily-telegraph.html
Further to above, James D, Judith Curry and WUWT also carry the story.
I'll try to lift my game Pete Ridley, but at least the nonsense I write is brief.
No kidding, James P. That was my first thought... Heck, I probably won't be in shorts here in Colorado till late June, let alone searching for a beach. Brrr...
Mark
Simon H. I've posted there without effort for years, simply by keeping to the point and if indulging in badinage, rather than abuse. I noted last year that the mods began erasing tons of posts, from both sides of the argument, but I would say around 80-90% of the articles in the environment pages now have no comments. It's not surprising in some requests given the number of fatuous articles that appear there, they have a series of FAQs which are answered from some sort of rough guide to climate change, probably the most fatuous was the question, "Is there evidence of human induced global warming?" (I'm paraphrasing). The answer was, again paraphrasing, "Lots of climate scientists say it is, and nearly all of the worlds national associations of science agree with them." No comments were allowed, they never have been on FAQ. Maybe someone's noticed the growing sophistication of the deniers and has decided having every doomsday article attacked by knowledgable critics isn't going to convince the gullible. Who knows?
Please check who WROTE the guest post at Watts UP With That...... to see which 'side' i'm on...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/09/james-delingpole-beats-a-press-complaint-from-uea/
actually I'm on my side..... i'll criticise/praise who ever I think is honest in their intentions, however wrong i may feel they are
It struck me when reading your post on WUWT that all this bleating about the scientists being exonerated is just that bleating. How could Jones be exonerated from deleting emails requested, or about to be requested under the FOI when by his own admission Russell told the House Scitech committee he hadn't asked. How could they have been exonerated from manipulating data when non of the papers were offered in evidence? And Dellers thoughts on the thoroughness or otherwise of the Russell and Oxburgh enquiries are shared by many people, and I doubt that it is there is a statute the denies anyone the right to express their beliefs that an enquiry had been less than thorough.
I believe that the Sir Unctious Acton and Trevor "no disputed papers in evidence" Davies will regret this action because it re-opens the wounds. We'll see.
Something in the same vein:
Climate science and the litany of unaccountability.
geronimo is right. How is Jones 'vindicated' if the only reason he got off from FOI prosecution is because the statute of limitations ran out?
Forgot the link
Climate science and the litany of unaccountability
Shub
Here's another one for you, the Tony Newbury (Harmless Sky) complaint on the BBC Newsnight spliced Obama inaugural speech, and the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee final findings.
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=276#more-276
What a travesty.
Ref. the comments about Climateghate and all of the whitewash enquiries, you may be interested in reading my article “CAN THERE BE AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF IPCC? update 06/09/2010” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/09/can-there-be-independent-investigation.html) and the earlier related articles.
Arthur (Dent) ref. your comment of Apr 9th at 23:09, no argument there, as evidenced by his comments on her blog.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
David S and Mark T
I had forgotten about the GW, but I'm pretty sure it will take more than 0.6 deg or whatever it is supposed to be to make the beaches of Bonny Scotland suitable for sunbathing before Easter. Of course, the Bish may have aeroplane tickets, and presumably won't be fretting too much about their means of propulsion...
I live on the beach in New England and it is just too damn cold for normal beach activities. Maybe His Grace has taken the family ice fishing....
`effin glorious!
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/greenpeace-founders-fight-it-out/
You know, I never thought that a blog about going on spring break would be so interesting. We should do it more often.
More 'GREEN V GREEN'
Those doughty patrons of free speech 'Campaign Against Climate Change' (props - Monbiot.G, Meacher.M & Lucas.C) You know, those nice people who send students round the 'sceptic' blogs to disrupt them, are torn down the middle.
Monbiot & Meacher, that charming old boy who posted a picture of George Osborne with his throat cut, are now 'daggers drawn' so to speak, on the Nuclear Issue.
Thus this 'CACC-handed' bunch have been forced to debate the issue.
We learn from their website that on Thursday May 12th at 7PM they will contemplate the issue 'Nuclear Power has no place in the fight against Climate Change. It is simply a diversion which leads us away from the real answer, Renewable Energy'. (sorry chaps, what 'renewable' energy would that be ?)
Former 'Greenpeace' man Stephen Tisdale will be up against 'Green Party' activist Darren Johnson.
However, so embarrassed are they, that they won't tell us where it's being held ! LOL
Banjo, that’s an interesting article that you linked to in your comment of Apr 11th at 2:26 AM. Did you read ant of the comments there? As I have a lot of exchanges with Australians about CACC I was interested in Shocker’s on April 9th at 6:28 am “This video featuring some of Tim Flannery’s comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeNDSeknn_c&feature=player_embedded#at=254 .
He is evil, personified. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.
After watching that A/V and another from 2008 (http://www.climatechangematters.net.au/tim_flannery.htm) on U-tube I don’t think that banjo is far off the mark.
Flannery has been appointed to head up the Australian Government’s Climate Change Commission and it is obvious why he has been specially chosen for that job. There is no doubting his inclinations – he’s as “Green” as they come. The Commission was set up after the Government reneged on its election promise of a citizens’ assembly. Such an assembly would be liable to influence from sceptics so that wouldn’t help persuade the Australian taxpayers to feel good about paying more of their hard-earned income over in the form of a tax on their carbon dioxide emissions. Although the Government claimed to be selecting climate experts it made sure that they were first and foremost staunch supporters of the CACC doctrine. They had to do that because they wanted to ensure the Commission’s full support even if, as “Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says it will work independently of the Government” (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/10/3135059.htm).
Here’s a taster of Flannery’s opinion on CACC in 2008 “All of the key indicators of the the climate system really are changing well in advance of the computer modelling. So, if you look at the data for the decay of the Arctic ice cap for example, that is just moving so quickly now. I mean last year was the worst year ever. People are saying, you know, that instead of the ice cap lasting a century, that maybe in five years there’ll be no Arctic ice cap. So you can’t look at things like that without seeing that we are in deep trouble” (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s2369164.htm).
So, with statements like that and not a sign of uncertainty, it is reasonable to expect that Flannery has demonstrated expertise in the causes of climate change. A search for relevant papers revealed – nothing. He’s written plenty books on subjects ranging from “The Kangaroo” (1985), through “Australia's Vanishing Mammals” (1990), “Life and Adventures: John Nicol, Mariner” (1997), “Prehistoric Mammals
of Australia and New Guinea: One Hundred Million Years of Evolution.” (2002) to “An Explorer's Notebook. Essays on Life, History and Climate.” (2007) but I find nothing on what causes climates to change. It is claimed that his areas of expertise are “evolutionary biology, Climate change, Paleontology, Zoology” (http://www.wentworthgroup.org/members/prof-tim-flannery) but I could find no evidence of any expertise in the processes and drivers of the different global climates.
This reminds me of another Australian Government appointee to a position of significance as advisor on climate science, Professor Barry Brook, Adelaide University. Once again I could find plenty of evidence of expertise,. This time in specie extinction, but nothing demonstrating the required expertise in the processes and drivers of global climates.
I suspect that if I check up on the background of the other members of the Climate Change Commission I’ll have similar results and not a sceptical scientist among them.
It looks as though I am fighting a losing battle trying to get Barry Woods to reflect upon his support of Jo Abbess’s disclosure of the contents of a Private & Confidential communications that I sent her. Although he believes that “It is good to have a debate” (http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/03/it-is-good-to-have-a-debate) it seems that he does not agree that it is good to admit when he is wrong (his comment of Mar 31st at 21:25 and mine of Apr 1st at 12:34 on Andrew’s earlier “Light Blogging” thread - http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/28/light-blogging.html?currentPage=4#comments.
Never mind, with his “BSc Applied Chemistry, MSc Cybernetics” (October 18th, 2010 @ 15:22 - http://www.joabbess.com/2010/10/12/dearth-of-the-oceans/) he may have some understanding of the CO2 fractionation issue that I raised on Andrew’s earlier “Light Blogging” thread (Mar 28th @ 22:07 - http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/28/light-blogging.html#comments).
I’m disappointed (but not surprised) that only cementafriend made much of a response on that topic (Mar 29, 2011 at 02:49). Geronimo was correct when he said “Pete Ridley's earlier comment about interpreting the evidence for paleoatmospheric CO2 concentrations from ice cores struck me as similarly interesting” but what I find particularly dissapointng is that even the experts in that area, such as professors Richard Alley, Jeff Severinghaus, etc. have refused to even recognise the existence of an alternative measure of molecular diameter. Anyone who has read the comments on the links that I referenced (Mar 28th @ 22:07 - http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/28/light-blogging.html#comments) should understand the significant difference between collision and kinetic diameter of CO2.
Are there any experts in molecular dynamics reading this blog who can comment on my hypothesis from a position of knowledge? Until someone shows why my hypothesis is flawed I have to assume that the CO2 “hockey stick” is just another illusion like Michael Mann’s mean global temperature “hickey stick” was shown to be by McIntyre and McKittrick.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
"Former 'Greenpeace' man Stephen Tisdale"
Another one! They must be acting rather unpeaceably to be losing high-profile members with, one assumes, decent salaries.
pete just because you send some one an email that you label 'private and confidential' does NOT mean anybody has to honour it.. don't be foolish. I really do not care about it, or you get over it, you are making my point by obsessing over it, you are coming across as something of a cyber stalker,- that is my opinion..
I disagree with Jo about virtually everything to do with man made climate change...
BUT, she publishes all comments, so stands head and sholuders above realclimate..
she also makes mistakes,like publishing lots of people email addresses, Abdrew Montford and I suggested she remove them and she did..
JO is NOT the enemy, I have friends and relatives that are far more Green or involved with the IPCC than JO, they are all intelleignet, honest NICE people, that I happen to think are just wrong on a particular issue.
No one would even remeber any of this, except for you keeping on about it.. I still think you were wrong! so no apologies for my own opinion.
Hi Barry, good of you to make the time to respond. Now what about applying your knowledge of chemistry to that much more important issue, “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?”. Can you tell me why the smaller kinetic diameter of CO2 (0.33nm) compared with that of N2 (0.38), O2 (0.36), Ar (0.34) or CH4 (0.38) is not of concern w.r.t. movement through the ever-reducing pores and channels in ice. If the movement of molecules within porous media is beyond your knowledge then I won’t bother you with it again.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley
That was me, actually, not geronimo. Let's not put words in his mouth.
I've spent the day at Legoland enjoyong some adult conversation with my 6 and 7 year olds.. Time to leave this thread alone I think ;)
Actually I won't why the snark...
"If the movement of molecules within porous media is beyond your knowledge then I won’t bother you with it again.
Best regards, Pete Ridley"
I have a degree in chemistry, but I can't be 'bothered to deal with someone who behave like the worst commentators at Deltoid, etc,etc. I have enough silly converstions with my 3 year old, to have any energy left to deal with the same level of pedantry and boorishness on climate blogs..
everyone knows the issues is politics and economics now, nor science - and that's paraphrasing Benny Peiser.
Hi BBD, sorry that I gave credit to geronimo where it wasn’t due. I stand corrected.
Barry, I couldn’t agree with you more when you say “ .. everyone knows the issues is politics and economics now, nor science ..”. There’s only one way to fight the politics and that’s at the ballot box, if there is someone to vote for who is honest about the climate change issue. When I spoke to our local MP James Clappison (http://www.jamesclappison.co.uk/home.aspx?id=7) about climate change just ahead of the last election, all that he could say was “I don’t understand it but the scientists tell us .. ”). We need more like Sammy Wilson. Looking at your article “Who are the Climate Fools? – Climate Fools Day Recap by Barry Woods, guest post at WUWT” (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6580) we appear to share opinions on climate change (despite our differences over the meaning of “Private & Confidential).
It’s a shame that you can’t contribute to the debate over “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” but that’s not unexpected. Neither can the “experts” and they have PhD’s.
Beat regards, Pete Ridley.