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...till-climbing/

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.

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, 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, 10:52*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.