On Oct 19, 10:52*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:21*pm, wrote:





On Oct 19, 7:37*pm, "www.waspies.net" wrote:

I've noticed that al the 'usual suspects' the BBC, Guardian,
Independent and of course the son of a affluent professional marxist;
now whats his name ..ah yes the boy Ed Milliband and associates, are
all keeping very quiet about the remarkable recovery of the Arctic sea
ice.

The BBC are notorious for this but I digress the Arctic ice is
rebounding with seemingly,enthusiasm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/1...w-287-higher-t...

Just thought I'd make this point.

This could have been a good debate about data sources and the crap
information that exists in cyber space instead all we got was some tart
rattling on about the BBC, pointless and off topic.

Felicitations and bonhomie aside, you are a caution! I started
trhiasaiosp[p[kajnn drrs precisely at this contumely denigration
because of the BBC's lack of impartiality. It does what is says on the....

can you turn what?

For clarity I have edited some of your post. Most of it is still
opaque, if not clearly transparent.

Perhaps we might look at the words of a minion in Minionopolis:
Richard.Black:

Highlighted text in body of PR for Nazi saluting chimp pictured in
link::

"A scientific report commissioned by the US government has concluded
there is "clear evidence" of climate change caused by human
activities."

More from the poster of Nazi saluters:

"The report, from the federal Climate Change Science Program, said
trends seen over the last 50 years "cannot be explained by natural
processes alone".

It found that temperatures have increased in the lower atmosphere as
well as at the Earth's surface."

By now the average Sun reader will have glazed over and started
surfing for porn.

Which is a pity as the article goes on to state:

"Holes in the data

But there are some big uncertainties which still need resolving.

Globally, the report concludes, tropospheric temperatures have risen
by 0.10 and 0.20C per decade since 1979, when satellite data became
generally available."

We are talking about tenths of a degree when the finest computations
don't give us reliable forecasts past a few days. Someone want to
explain that to them?

It gets worse:

"Measuring tropospheric temperatures is far from a simple business.

Satellites sense the "average" temperature of the air between
themselves and the Earth, largely blind to what is happening at
different altitudes.

To compound matters, instruments on board satellites degrade over
time, orbits subtly drift, and calibration between different
satellites may be poor.

Weather balloons (or radiosondes) take real-time measurements as they
ascend, but scientists can never assess instruments afterwards; they
are "fire-and-forget" equipment.

Correcting for all these potential sources of error is a sensitive and
time-consuming process."

Which, to be fair to Mr Black, is more or less what an honest man
would write about, given the quotes from experts he is relying on in
the article.

I'd like to hear just how much influence he had in the final draught
of this post that bears his name:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4969772.stm

Because I think that it was GOT AT.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First thoughts are : why in the middle of that article is there an
image of GW Bush and his wife; with GW giving a nazi style salute-
surely there were thousands of other photographs in the BBC library
that could have been used totally out of context?