On Oct 19, 7:37*pm, "www.waspies.net" wrote:
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.
I'm not too sure if *Alastair and Dawlish posted-they usualy do if the
ice news is grim; but if never ceases to amaze me how all those that
are concerned that we heading for melt down stay silent when the
disaster is postponed.

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.

I personally believe all of this data that global warming doesn't exist,
that Close encounters is a documentary, that the MFI destroyed the twin
towers, and that Diana was murdered by Interflora, I'm off to read some
more out of there stories in the Observer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well start your own thread you tosser. I started trhis precisely
because of the BBC's lack of impartiality. It does what is says on the
can you ****.

On Oct 19, 8:17*pm, Bonos Ego wrote:
Now is it me or has warming in the UK been placed temporarily on hold?

I've been analysing the CET temperature series, and produced a revised
rolling 12 month annual temperature series, and the warming appears to
have been placed on hold since May 2007.

Links to graphs below.

Rolling 12 month CET series since 1970http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp17/BonosEgo/e68300ad.jpg

Rolling 12 month CET series since 2000http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp17/BonosEgo/e3942abe.jpg

PS, I think we will have a cold Christmas this year, particularly in
Northern Britain, what to others think?

I agree.

On Oct 19, 6:34*pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Oct 19, 5:31*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:



Nor is the general point true that there was any sort of consensus on
'global cooling' during the 1970s. There is an excellent paper in
September's 'Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society' that
lays this argument to rest: 'The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling
Scientific Consensus' [Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and
John Fleck]. In a nutshell, the authors found that of relevant papers
published from 1965 to 1979, 44 indicated 'warming' and just seven
'cooling', while 20 were 'neutral'.

The idea that winters in the UK could get colder persisted for some
time after 1979. *In the May 1987 edition of "Weather" is a letter
suggesting that cold winters in SE England were now the norm after the
cold of 1985,6 and 7. There are thoughts along these lines elsewhere
in that issue too. *It seems to illustrate the point that long-term
predictions are often excessively influenced by recent events, an all-
too-human reaction. *There have been few seriously cold spells of any
length in SE England since 1987. *February 1991 had a very cold spell
but it didn't last long.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Blimey Tudor is that some kind of long winded convoluted agreement,
that yes there was some anxiety that our world was going to get
colder.? Cos that's how I remember it.

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.

On Oct 19, 10:47*pm, wrote:
On Oct 19, 6:34*pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:





On Oct 19, 5:31*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:

Nor is the general point true that there was any sort of consensus on
'global cooling' during the 1970s. There is an excellent paper in
September's 'Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society' that
lays this argument to rest: 'The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling
Scientific Consensus' [Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and
John Fleck]. In a nutshell, the authors found that of relevant papers
published from 1965 to 1979, 44 indicated 'warming' and just seven
'cooling', while 20 were 'neutral'.

The idea that winters in the UK could get colder persisted for some
time after 1979. *In the May 1987 edition of "Weather" is a letter
suggesting that cold winters in SE England were now the norm after the
cold of 1985,6 and 7. There are thoughts along these lines elsewhere
in that issue too. *It seems to illustrate the point that long-term
predictions are often excessively influenced by recent events, an all-
too-human reaction. *There have been few seriously cold spells of any
length in SE England since 1987. *February 1991 had a very cold spell
but it didn't last long.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Blimey Tudor is that some kind *of long winded convoluted agreement,
that yes there was some anxiety that our world was going to get
colder.? *Cos that's how I remember it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually reading your post again you are very clear that yes, a
cooling climate was very believable. I'm just getting irritated by
people who never experienced that period making such dissmisive
comments.

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?

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 -

Coming from the champion of the obscure that is as usuall meaningless
tripe.

On Oct 20, 12:13*am, wrote:

Coming from the champion of the obscure that is as usuall meaningless
tripe.

On May 7 2006, 12:51 am, "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:
Adam Lea wrote:
"Richard Orrell" wrote in message
roups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4969772.stm

I didn't think this was anything new:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/20...s-natural.html

Hells bells; it's been going on since Noah entered the ark. Time and
again climate changes affected the regions around Palestine
in biblical times. So what were you expecting?

Carbon dioxide that no longer dissolves in water?

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/20...cepticism.html

Which had this to say about editors:

"Anyway, another of Richard Black's articles was an investigation into
"censorship". Some time ago, he asked for any evidence to back up the
occasional claims that the reason why there is no sceptical science is
because it is censored by the gatekeepers of the peer-review system.

Apparently someone (several people?) had pointed him towards my
multiply-rejected paper "Can we believe in high climate sensitivity",
so he phoned me up for a chat about it.

As is clear from his article, I don't really see this as "censorship
of scepticism" so much as gatekeepers doing their usual thing of
defending the status quo.

In fact as I blogged at the time, a fair proportion of the reviewers
actually supported publication, it was the journal editors who seemed
to be the main obstacle."

The fact is that most people fail to realise that you don't just write
an article for the BBC the way you sit down and write a post to
Usenet.

In the first place you don't get to choose what you want to write; you
might sell a prospective outlook on a matter but then the offer might
come back for so many words on climate change.

In which case you savour a moral dilemma or work around it as best you
can.

What was so difficult for your admittedly dimmer light enhancer to
deal with in the flare of my earlier brilliance?

In the earlier post I sent, it was obvious to me that a measurement
error of tenths of a degree averaged over a decade is easily supplied
from the positioning of sensitive equipment, when just moving a few
steps over from the bus stop can get you 3 or more whole degrees C on
any sunny morning.

On Oct 19, 10:55*pm, wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:47*pm, wrote:





On Oct 19, 6:34*pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Oct 19, 5:31*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:

Nor is the general point true that there was any sort of consensus on
'global cooling' during the 1970s. There is an excellent paper in
September's 'Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society' that
lays this argument to rest: 'The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling
Scientific Consensus' [Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and
John Fleck]. In a nutshell, the authors found that of relevant papers
published from 1965 to 1979, 44 indicated 'warming' and just seven
'cooling', while 20 were 'neutral'.

The idea that winters in the UK could get colder persisted for some
time after 1979. *In the May 1987 edition of "Weather" is a letter
suggesting that cold winters in SE England were now the norm after the
cold of 1985,6 and 7. There are thoughts along these lines elsewhere
in that issue too. *It seems to illustrate the point that long-term
predictions are often excessively influenced by recent events, an all-
too-human reaction. *There have been few seriously cold spells of any
length in SE England since 1987. *February 1991 had a very cold spell
but it didn't last long.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Blimey Tudor is that some kind *of long winded convoluted agreement,
that yes there was some anxiety that our world was going to get
colder.? *Cos that's how I remember it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually reading your post again you are very clear that yes, a
cooling climate was very believable. I'm just getting irritated by
people who never experienced that period making such dissmisive
comments.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The point of the post was not to say whether cold winters were
believable or not but that forecasts were sometimes made with too
great an emphasis on the very recent past. Thus a cooling climate
was believable on that flimsy basis but the winters of the last 20
years have shown it to be a false belief, based too much on recent
memory. If contributors to "Weather" can make that kind of mistake
you should hardly be surprised that the media, including the BBC, can
have an irrational view of the subject.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

wrote:

On Oct 19, 10:49 am, Graham P Davis wrote:
wrote:
Anyhow my thread was about the BBC failing in their birch leaf
thrashing angst to report on any climate news that contradict the
doomsaying AGW bandwagon. This is no mistake, it is because the BBC
and I 'll through in UKMO here; are incresasingly being lead by
ideology.

They are being led by science, not ideology.



Now does anyone on this group have an explantion other than that; or
do you feel the BBC's coverge on climate is fair an impartial.?

I think the BBC's coverage is generally fair and impartial, sometimes I
wonder if it's not being too fair towards misguided minorities such as
during the MMR scare.

My main problem with the recent BBC2 "Climate War" series was that it
perpetuated the myth that during the seventies, after a period of slight
global cooling, scientists forecast a new ice age and then a decade
later, after the scorching seventies UK summers, forecast global warming.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy

Well Graham all I know is that during the seventies the Daily
Telegraph Sunday supplement ran a rather large feature on the coming
ice age, as did the tabloid Sunday Mirror (Pictorial in the
seventies). In fact the Pictorial devoted the front page and
subsequent pages to the headlines "New Ice Age on its way" or
something like that. So something was definitely catching the
imagination at that time. Of course as there was no internet then it
would have been even a lower profile story but it wasn't ;so something
was definitively afoot at the time. Didn't the ex editor of the New
Scientist Nigel Calder write a book called the Weather Machine (I
still have it)
which was a response to serious concern about the planet cooling and
possibly drifting towards much harsher times for agriculture?

I agree that there was a theory of a new ice age. What the programme failed
to show was that at the same time the global-warming theory was also in
existence and preceded the evidence of warming and the hot UK summers of 75
and 76.

There were a couple of ice-age panics in the media. One in the sixties was
triggered by the Met Office long-range-forecasting group and was based on
100-year cycles. What it was forecasting was another Little Ice Age for the
UK but the media blew it up out of all proportion - basically losing
the "little" - as usual. However, by the end of the sixties, a new study by
one of the group broke the analysis into seasons and this showed that the
winters had reached their minimum in the sixties and would get warmer for
the next fifty years. It also showed springs and autumns would get colder.

The other ice-age theory was, as far as I remember, connected with global
cooling due to pollution particles. No account had been taken of increasing
CO2 and the scientist(s?) responsible for the theory soon realised the CO2
effect would swamp any cooling caused by pollution.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy