Climate Change - More errors

[Quillan]

It seems the Met Office, who incidentally may be dropped by the BBC because of inaccurate weather forecasting, is going to revisit its 160 years of data to look at climate change again. As one of the sources used by the pro climate change brigade it leaves two prestigious organisations (the other being the CRU at East Anglia) used to support the theory in doubt. This coupled with the fact that The New Scientist has said that they have discovered that the melting of the glaciers in the Himalayas and the fact that they will all disappear by 2035 was based not on scientific proof but on a phone conversation with some India professor who has no technical data to back up his claims. After further scientific investigations it seem the glacier's are melting just a little more than normal but nothing to be worried about.

There is apparently pressure being bought on the Met Office not to revisit its long term data by the government. I suspect they are worried that we will be up in arms when we find out we didn't have to spend so much money internally nor did we have to give so much away to third world countries to help stop climate change. We won't know the result of this re-evaluation of Met Office data for around 3 years apparently.

Strangely enough Met Office staff are still getting bonuses for accurate weather predictions.

Sources.

Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data

World misled over Himalayan glacier metldown

It's raining bonuses at the Met Office

 

[cooperlola]

[quote user="Quillan"]

the pro climate change brigade i

 

[/quote]And who might they be, Quillan?  Hands up all those in favour of climate change.

Sorry.[:$]  It's Sunday in rehab' and I've got nothing better to do.

[Quillan]

[quote user="cooperlola"][quote user="Quillan"]

the pro climate change brigade i

 

[/quote]And who might they be, Quillan?  Hands up all those in favour of climate change.

Sorry.[:$]  It's Sunday in rehab' and I've got nothing better to do.
[/quote]

Politicians to take your mind off them screwing you and the multi billion dollar 'green' industry built up around climate change I guess. [;-)]

[Clarkkent]

I am not going to get into an argument about "global warming as conspiracy" - I think this is far too serious a subject to be engaged at that level.

However, I think that there are two points which emerge from Quillan's post which merit caution.

The first is that "climate" and "weather" are two different things. The points Quillan makes about the Met Office are concerned with weather - short term events. The fact that the Met Office's attempts at medium term forecasting were not very accurate should be of no surprise to anyone, weather systems are chaotic. Climate is about very long term changes (hundreds of years). Another way of looking at it is to say that climate is about trend and weather about variations within that trend.

The second is that science is defined by peer-reviewed academic papers, not by journalists. Even if information is found in New Scientist it is still journalism and not science. Most journalists reporting scientific matters are humanities graduates and are scientifically illiterate. If the report about the state of the Himalayas is true, the original information was not credible, it was anecdotal and would not even be considered as scientifically valid.

Journalists are very useful people - they present us with a picture of the world which is informative and influential. However, the skills required to report on world events are not those required to report the slow, dispassionate progress of scientific knowledge.

[baypond]

An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming (Paperback)

Nigel Lawson

Amazon for a fiver.

Gives a different perspective on global warming and worth a read. However, global warming and global polution tend to get wrapped up in one, and one argument for persuing the global warming argument is that it means there is pressure on countries to reduce polution which is a good thing.

But Lawson blows most of the current popular arguments out the water.

[Bugsy]

This is a subject that will run for a long time with argument and counter-argument flying back and forth. There are two facts, however, that are beyond doubt.

1. We should all be doing whatever we can to reduce our pollution and waste.

2. Plans drawn up by governments riding on the back of 'global warming' will cost us all.

.

[Quillan]

[quote user="Clarkkent"]

The first is that "climate" and "weather" are two different things. The points Quillan makes about the Met Office are concerned with weather - short term events. The fact that the Met Office's attempts at medium term forecasting were not very accurate should be of no surprise to anyone, weather systems are chaotic. Climate is about very long term changes (hundreds of years). Another way of looking at it is to say that climate is about trend and weather about variations within that trend.

[/quote]

I thing you need to read the article, the re-visiting of the data is about climate change.

[quote user="Clarkkent"]

The second is that science is defined by peer-reviewed academic papers, not by journalists. Even if information is found in New Scientist it is still journalism and not science. Most journalists reporting scientific matters are humanities graduates and are scientifically illiterate. If the report about the state of the Himalayas is true, the original information was not credible, it was anecdotal and would not even be considered as scientifically valid.

Journalists are very useful people - they present us with a picture of the world which is informative and influential. However, the skills required to report on world events are not those required to report the slow, dispassionate progress of scientific knowledge.

[/quote]

Quite true but then you can argue the other way as well. I doubt anyone has read all the scientific information on climate change and very few have the knowledge on how to interpret it. I think that the problem does lay with the journalists, I doubt very many of them have actually read all the climate change reports either, likewise I suspect not even GB or his ministers have read them. We rely on the newspapers and TV to give us the facts, the problem is these people often go off 'half cocked' or put their own slant on the story to suit their own needs, to make money. I think its a good thing that the met office and the New Scientist have either gone back to re-visit the data, admitted their report may be wrong or both. I think in a way they are forced to do this because people are waking up and are starting to spot inconsistances and ask questions. I think more and more people are now thinking that yes there is climate change but doubt very much that we are the cause and this does not fit in well with what the government would like us to believe. As I have said many times before, climate change is big business.

[Chancer]

[quote user="Bugbear"]This is a subject that will run for a long time with argument and counter-argument flying back and forth. There are two facts, however, that are beyond doubt.

1. We should all be doing whatever we can to reduce our pollution and waste.

2. Plans drawn up by governments riding on the back of 'global warming' will cost us all.

.
[/quote]

You have put it better than I ever could and during the time that I was trying to compose a similar response.

I would recommend strongly that anyone wanting to broaden their mind on this subject read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton which is a cracking fiction book that at the same time gives a very strong argument against the climate change lobby by using non fiction historical and statistical facts.