posted May 09, 2011 06:32 PM            

By Richard Black

Environment correspondent, BBC News

Successive reviews into the University of East Anglia (UEA) climate e-mail hack cast no doubt on the basic picture of global warming, the government says.

In its response to an inquiry by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, the government agrees there were failings at the university.

And the reviews could have been conducted more openly, it says.

The government says it wants to clarify how Freedom of Information laws apply to scientific research in future.

The committee's report, and the government's response to it, refer back to two reviews carried out into issues arising from the theft and online publication of thousands of e-mails from a server at the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009.

The e-mails emerged shortly before the potentially pivotal UN climate summit in Copenhagen.

The reviews, headed by Lord Oxburgh and Sir Muir Russell, found that the episode did raise questions about the conduct of climate science and about universities' compliance with Freedom of Information (FoI) legislation.

But, they said, individual researchers had not tried to subvert the scientific process, and the fundamental picture of a planet warming under the impact of fossil-fuel burning was basically unchallenged.

The government agrees, saying: "we find no evidence to question the scientific basis of human influence on the climate".

"Sceptical" bloggers have also challenged the conduct of the reviews, which led to the Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry.

Integrity of science

The committee's report, published in January, agreed that the ways in which the reviews were set up and run did raise issues of concern.

The "scope and purpose" of Lord Oxburgh's review "appeared to change from an examination of the integrity of the science to the integrity of the scientists", they said.

That same review "should have been more open and transparent", while "the process by which it selected the documents for review could have been more open".

The government's reponse basically endorses the committee's conclusions, and looks forward.

"As well as establishing that events at the university do not undermine the scientific basis of human-driven climate change, the reviews have made a number of useful recommendations to improve transparency in climate science," it says.

"We welcome - and agree with - the finding of the committee that it is time 'with greater openness and transparency, to move on'."

As part of that moving-on process, it points to on-going discussions within the national research councils and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

"A set of common data access principles is being developed across the research councils: these principles start with a presumption in favour of openness and transparency, whilst ensuring appropriate protection and safeguards are in place to protect commercially sensitive and personal data," it says.

The ICO, meanwhile, is working with other government agencies and outside bodies such as the Royal Society to devise guidelines on how FoI laws should apply to research, with the aim of having them in place by September.

UEA, which has already reformed processes for handling FoI requests, welcomed the government response, in particular "the finding that there is no evidence to question the validity of research conducted by the Climatic Research Unit.

posted May 19, 2011 09:51 AM            

The British government and the BBC are totally down with man made global warming.

But, others are not and what happens in Britain isn't going to happen in the US. O'Bomber couldn't get his "Cap and Tax" global warming legislation through Congress...not even with a majority demoscat Senate.

51% Blame Extreme Weather on Long-Term Planetary Trends, 19% Blame Human Activity
Friday, May 13, 2011
www.rasmussenreports.com

posted May 20, 2011 01:08 PM            

i still feel downgrading the use of oil and coal is necessary to an environment HUMANS can live in. i just don't think that climate warming is necessarily caused by their use.

as to his conclusions about governments' motives, maybe, maybe not. i think his initial statement that those who jumped on the "trend" are embarrassed to admit they were wrong and addicted to the cash flow they have been enjoying...

posted June 05, 2011 12:32 PM            

Mitt Romney panders again, while another climate scientist rediscovers his own integrity

Romney: "I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that.."

"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."

If Mitt is paying attention, he can't possibly believe this. Not when former climate alarmists are coming clean, as this scientist is:

"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant

posted June 05, 2011 12:41 PM            

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.

Let’s set a few things straight.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade — yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected.” These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.

One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.

The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the United States, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source.

Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?

The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.

We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold — in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.

David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23.

posted June 05, 2011 04:46 PM            

I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.

which is why i have to wonder if he has not chosen NOW to switch over because someone is paying him more?

if only it were possible to find someone whose opinion has NOT been bought by either side and who does not change horses in midstream either, it would be so much easier for we laymen to make up OUR minds, wouldn't it?

posted June 05, 2011 04:55 PM            

however i can't help noticing that cities are warmer than rural scapes, not because of carbon dioxide compounding greenhouse syndromes, but because WE HEAT THEM, and in summer WE PUMP HOT AIR OUT OF BUILDINGS onto the streets...in short, we do add to the temperature of the planet. especially in cosmopolitan areas.

posted June 05, 2011 07:50 PM            

i didn't say he was directly paid to falsify data, but he has been working for what HE calls "the gravy train" a long time past the point where he admits the data proved suspect. why is he coming out now? in fact why have so few (as to be all but invisible) scientists said anything before the last couple of years? why ARE they speaking out now?

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

i hate to be cynical but these questions ALSO need to be asked. whether you agree with them now, or then, i smell a fish or several.

i also know some scientists who say the earth has been COOLING since '99. they are not "climate" scientists but they take an interest out of intellectual curiosity...where was this evans from 99 to 05? working for the aussie govt dept trying to drum global warming into the public...?

posted June 05, 2011 10:50 PM            

quote:

---

The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off.

---

This is false. We've been over this point, and included the skeptical scientist's word on this which is that last year was the warmest on record. Remember that piece on FoxNews totally getting their story wrong according to the skeptical scientist who gathers satellite data? Page 16 in this very thread.

Spencer Himself Reported That 2010 Was Tied As Warmest Year On Record.
Spencer and John Christy, both of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, reported that according to their data, "2010 finished in a photo finish with 1998 for the warmest year in the 32-year satellite temperature record." They further noted that "both 1998 and 2010 were years in which an El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event raised temperatures around the globe."

Sorry, but to question the science by citing satellite data that doesn't concur with his belief is rather nonsensical.

In a separate global temperature report released last week, 2010 finished in a tie with 1998 for the warmest year in the 32-year satellite temperature record, according to John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH).

posted June 06, 2011 11:48 AM            

quote:

---

We've been over this before...true...and you've lost every round because the facts are against your cause.

---

That's, in fact, ENTIRELY inaccurate. I've always presented the more balanced view, which I've continued in my previous post.

You trotted out a "scientist" who claims that other scientists aren't acknowledging all of the scientific measurements available to them including the satellite temperature data. He looks quite reasonable unless you know something about the subject. The satellite data doesn't support his view, and that's easy to establish with some rather simple internet searches. He is the kind of scientist he claims the other scientists to be.

posted June 06, 2011 12:47 PM            

Hey ace, we're talking about climate science here, not an arcane political point.

Science is neither balanced nor unbalanced.

Scientific theory is either true or untrue and scientists don't make up their minds UNTIL they've examined the "facts" of the subject matter.

Hahaha
Balanced view indeed!

Unfortunately, you have lost every round in this debate over climate science and man made global warming.

Further, I'm still waiting for you to produce at least 31,000 American scientists...9,000 of whom hold a PhD who say....human emitted carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming.

posted June 06, 2011 12:54 PM            

Examining all the facts would make for "balanced" science by any account. You've continuously done no such thing. You've continuously needed someone to come along and point you in the direction of what the actual science says.

posted June 06, 2011 12:58 PM            

quote:

---

Unfortunately, you have lost every round in this debate over climate science and man made global warming.

---

No, I haven't. You're the one still trying to prove you have a leg to stand on. I continue to stand on the leg that sound science has provided.

quote:

---

Further, I'm still waiting for you to produce at least 31,000 American scientists...9,000 of whom hold a PhD who say....human emitted carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming.

---

Your supposed list of the same has been repeatedly debunked over the course of years. No dice still.

quote:

---

Get back to me when you can do that.

---

posted June 06, 2011 01:07 PM            

They were sunk when it was revealed...by one of their so called "leading lights" that there has been no significant warming since 1995.

They were sunk when the idiot Mann produced a hockey stick graph which conveniently did away with both the medieval warm period and the little ice age and got caught.

They were sunk when it was revealed they cooked the books on temperature input data and tried to hide the decline in temperatures.

Truly acoustic, you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about.

That is the primary reason you're unable to prevail in debates here.

posted June 06, 2011 01:19 PM            

Just because you keep repeating false things, doesn't make them true.

quote:

---

The man made global warming alarmists were sunk when their computer models didn't jibe with actual temperature recordings.

---

Nope. Their computer models may have been faulty, that's true. That's always going to be true until they know absolutely everything there is to know about the climate, which no person on Earth currently does. It's a poor argument, because the warming is undeniable.

quote:

---

They were sunk when it was revealed...by one of their so called "leading lights" that there has been no significant warming since 1995.

---

False. I've posted Phil Jones rebuttal here myself.

quote:

---

They were sunk when the idiot Mann produced a hockey stick graph which conveniently did away with both the medieval warm period and the little ice age and got caught.

---

False again. Mann was vindicated by other scientists worldwide. The medieval warm period was localized, and is therefore another FALSE argument.

quote:

---

They were sunk when it was revealed they cooked the books on temperature input data and tried to hide the decline in temperatures.

---

False. Temperature reading from around the world confirmed the data to be accurate.

quote:

---

Truly acoustic, you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about.

---

False again. Clearly someone here doesn't know what they're talking about (even after having been presented with loads of information on the subject), and that person is you.

quote:

---

That is the primary reason you're unable to prevail in debates here.

---

Like I said earlier, you're still trying to find that silver bullet that will win this argument for you. You haven't found it yet. It's quite simple to win a debate with you on this subject as you don't seem to have the capacity to look at the information objectively.

quote:

---

Now acoustic, where's your list of 31,000 American scientists who agree with you that humans are causing global warming?

---

posted June 06, 2011 01:39 PM            

Phil Jones did what he did and said what he said. End of the story.

Mann produced a fraud and con when he attempted to delete from the climate history, the medieval warm period and little ice age.

It's a con and it's been a con from the beginning.

There is no argument which can salvage the position of these con artists, crackpot so called scientists and hangers-on sycophants who are so naive they believe any bullshiiit someone with a degree excretes through their lower orifice.

posted June 06, 2011 02:48 PM            

quote:

---

There is no argument which can salvage the position of these con artists, crackpot so called scientists and hangers-on sycophants who are so naive they believe any bullshiiit someone with a degree excretes through their lower orifice.

---

Sure there is. The very fact that you're still trying to make a case for yourself proves it. You use terrible sources to try to prove your side, and lend no credibility to your own position.

quote:

---

Now acoustic, where's your list of 31,000 American scientists who agree with you...and Phil Jones, Mann et.al.?

---

posted June 07, 2011 09:47 AM            

where is your list of 31,000 American scientists who agree with your position?

I've already posted a list of 31,000 American scientists who say man made global warming is a crock of crap and 9,000 of those hold a PhD.

posted June 07, 2011 11:04 AM            

Where's your 31,000 American scientists who you say constitute your so called "concensus" opinion that humans are causing man made global warming...which Phil Jones said ended in 1995?

When are you going to getaroundtoit acoustic?