Welcome to the Science Forum Return to Homepage
    C4 Forums    Science    Science Forum    On AGW: "I am happy to be branded a heretic."
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
  Login/Join 
M Batchelor
Two Silver Stars
Posted
David Bellamy has just written a rebuke to critics in the Times on his being branded a "heretic" for being sceptical about AGW.

He writes:
quote:
I am happy to be branded a heretic because throughout history heretics have stood up against dogma based on the bigotry of vested interests. But I don’t like being smeared as a denier because deniers don’t believe in facts. The truth is that there are no facts that link the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming. Instead of facts, the advocates of man-made climate change trade in future scenarios based on complex and often unreliable computer models.

Name-calling may be acceptable in politics but it should have no place in science; indeed, what is happening smacks of McCarthyism, witch-hunts and all.


He tells us that he is worried about the lack of scientific rigour currently being applied to the topic of AGW.

quote:
Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is “no” and “yes”.

No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up against an “inconvenient truth”. Its research shows that since 1998 the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to increase.

Yes, because the self-proclaimed consensus among scientists has detached itself from the questioning rigours of hard science and become a political cause. Those of us who dare to question the dogma of the global-warming doomsters who claim that C not only stands for carbon but also for climate catastrophe are vilified as heretics or worse as deniers.


Today’s forecast: yet another blast of hot air
 
Posts: 122Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Roger58
Four Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by M Batchelor:
David Bellamy has just written a rebuke to critics in the Times on his being branded a "heretic" for being sceptical about AGW.

He writes:
quote:
I am happy to be branded a heretic because throughout history heretics have stood up against dogma based on the bigotry of vested interests. But I don’t like being smeared as a denier because deniers don’t believe in facts. The truth is that there are no facts that link the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming. Instead of facts, the advocates of man-made climate change trade in future scenarios based on complex and often unreliable computer models.

Name-calling may be acceptable in politics but it should have no place in science; indeed, what is happening smacks of McCarthyism, witch-hunts and all.


He tells us that he is worried about the lack of scientific rigour currently being applied to the topic of AGW.

quote:
Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is “no” and “yes”.

No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up against an “inconvenient truth”. Its research shows that since 1998 the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to increase.

Yes, because the self-proclaimed consensus among scientists has detached itself from the questioning rigours of hard science and become a political cause. Those of us who dare to question the dogma of the global-warming doomsters who claim that C not only stands for carbon but also for climate catastrophe are vilified as heretics or worse as deniers.


Today’s forecast: yet another blast of hot air
A very good article. And I've read in several places that Mr Bellamy is brave for stepping forward into a world of "dogma based on the bigotry of vested interests" to so say these things and for a major newspaper like the Times to print them. All in all, there is a sense that the tide is beginning to turn.
 
Posts: 315Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
legjoints
Two Gold Stars
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by M Batchelor:
David Bellamy has just written a rebuke to critics in the Times on his being branded a "heretic" for being sceptical about AGW.

quote:
Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is “no” and “yes”.

No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up against an “inconvenient truth”. Its research shows that since 1998 the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to increase.




Can you find a link to where the Hadley Centre says that? Here's their website, which from what I can make out, seems to fully endorse the IPCC report, and, referring to the judge's ruling on An Inconvenient Truth, they say they are "pleased that the evidence for climate change had been accepted in a British court of law in line with the IPCC findings that warming our planet is unequivocal, and that it is very likely that most of this warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gases."
 
Posts: 1205Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Son of Mulder
One Gold Star
Posted Hide Post
Legjoints
quote:
Can you find a link to where the Hadley Centre says that?


Well they should have because it hasn't. And if you look at the global graph of average temperature in the attached based on Hadley data (HADCRUT3) you'll see 1998 global average was warmer than any other year (or are my eyes deceiving me?).
Hadley temperature data

Here we go again.
 
Posts: 639Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
suricat
One Gold Star
Posted Hide Post
legjoints.

You'll find it here.

www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Monthly/Hadplot_globe.gif

Look at the yearly levels, not the 'trend'.

Regards, suricat.
 
Posts: 727Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
legjoints
Two Gold Stars
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Legjoints
quote:
Can you find a link to where the Hadley Centre says that?


Well they should have because it hasn't. And if you look at the global graph of average temperature in the attached based on Hadley data (HADCRUT3) you'll see 1998 global average was warmer than any other year (or are my eyes deceiving me?).
Hadley temperature data

Here we go again.


From their graph it looks like the average temperature in the 8 years after 1998 is higher than in the 8 years before 1998. One year is not statistically significant. You have to look at the trend and the trend is quite clearly going in an upwards direction.
 
Posts: 1205Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
legjoints
Two Gold Stars
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by suricat:
legjoints.

You'll find it here.

www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Monthly/Hadplot_globe.gif

Look at the yearly levels, not the 'trend'.

Regards, suricat.


Why not look at the monthly levels, or the daily levels? Or look at the levels for each decade, or each group of 5 years?

Surely it's the trend that's significant. In any set of data you can have results that fall outside the standard deviation.

According to NASA's figures, 4 of the 5 warmest years on record were after 1998.
 
Posts: 1205Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
suricat
One Gold Star
Posted Hide Post
legjoints.

It was the hottest year on record (though there are other factors in this). The 'trend' looks to be flattening. Don't have time to post more.

Best regards, suricat.
 
Posts: 727Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
realprimate
One Gold Star
Posted Hide Post
Ah Bellamy. Reminds me a few months back of the hilarious exchange between him and Monbiot over glaciers.

Perhaps it's best for you to google :-

bellamy glaciers % key

As far as I can tell Bellamy hasn't retracted a single word of his absurd assertion that 555 glaciers out of 625 are advancing.

So obviously he's happy to be branded ... a prat.
 
Posts: 559Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
legjoints
Two Gold Stars
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by suricat:
legjoints.

It was the hottest year on record (though there are other factors in this). The 'trend' looks to be flattening.


Based on a couple of years results. But look at the trend line. It's not a straight line, it's quite wiggly. There was a brief period in the early-mid eighties when the upward trend appeared to have levelled off, but then in the late eighties it increases again. Just looking at a handful of data points on a graph like this can be very misleading. It's like saying:

quote:
The temperature today is lower than it was a month ago. Halelujah! We're saved! Our prayers have been answered. Global warming has come to an end.
 
Posts: 1205Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
legjoints
Two Gold Stars
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by realprimate:
Ah Bellamy. Reminds me a few months back of the hilarious exchange between him and Monbiot over glaciers.

Perhaps it's best for you to google :-

bellamy glaciers % key

As far as I can tell Bellamy hasn't retracted a single word of his absurd assertion that 555 glaciers out of 625 are advancing.

So obviously he's happy to be branded ... a prat.


He likes plants, doesn't he? Perhaps he believes the global greenhouse would be better for plants, especially if it kills off a lot of the humans that are doing such harm to them. Is there a Plant Liberation Front?

I think it's crazy focussing on one individual, whovever it is. And Bellamy is not even a climatologist so his opinion on climate change doesn't have any more validity than any one else's.
 
Posts: 1205Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Geoman
Two Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
As posted by legjoints

quote:
And Bellamy is not even a climatologist so his opinion on climate change doesn't have any more validity than any one else's.


I suppose this also includes Al Gore?
 
Posts: 53Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
legjoints
Two Gold Stars
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Geoman:
As posted by legjoints

quote:
And Bellamy is not even a climatologist so his opinion on climate change doesn't have any more validity than any one else's.


I suppose this also includes Al Gore?


Al Gore is not a climatologist so no, his opinion doesn't have any more validity than anyone else's. Gore is only a communicator, he's not a researcher. The opinions of the IPCC however, do carry a lot of weight, as do peer-reviewed scientific papers. The IPCC report has been explicitly endorsed by the following scientific academies:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Similar conclusions to those reached by the IPCC have been reached by:

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
 
Posts: 1205Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
TrueSceptic
One Gold Star
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by legjoints:

Al Gore is not a climatologist so no, his opinion doesn't have any more validity than anyone else's. Gore is only a communicator, he's not a researcher. The opinions of the IPCC however, do carry a lot of weight, as do peer-reviewed scientific papers. The IPCC report has been explicitly endorsed by the following scientific academies:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Similar conclusions to those reached by the IPCC have been reached by:

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

You are wasting your time. Don't you realise that they are all part of the great left/green conspiracy and only the chosen few can see the truth? Devil
 
Posts: 554Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
M Batchelor
Two Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by legjoints:
quote:
Originally posted by Geoman:
As posted by legjoints

quote:
And Bellamy is not even a climatologist so his opinion on climate change doesn't have any more validity than any one else's.


I suppose this also includes Al Gore?


Al Gore is not a climatologist so no, his opinion doesn't have any more validity than anyone else's. Gore is only a communicator, he's not a researcher. The opinions of the IPCC however, do carry a lot of weight, as do peer-reviewed scientific papers. The IPCC report has been explicitly endorsed by the following scientific academies:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Similar conclusions to those reached by the IPCC have been reached by:

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)


A corrupt tax-funded gravy train of state organizations supported through a scam of politicians greedy for votes, power and money.
 
Posts: 122Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Lucibee
Three Gold Stars
Picture of Lucibee
Posted Hide Post
...and the preservation of human life on the planet, perhaps...


¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
 
Posts: 1701Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
legjoints
Two Gold Stars
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by M Batchelor:
quote:
Originally posted by legjoints:
quote:
Originally posted by Geoman:
As posted by legjoints

quote:
And Bellamy is not even a climatologist so his opinion on climate change doesn't have any more validity than any one else's.


I suppose this also includes Al Gore?


Al Gore is not a climatologist so no, his opinion doesn't have any more validity than anyone else's. Gore is only a communicator, he's not a researcher. The opinions of the IPCC however, do carry a lot of weight, as do peer-reviewed scientific papers. The IPCC report has been explicitly endorsed by the following scientific academies:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Similar conclusions to those reached by the IPCC have been reached by:

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)


A corrupt tax-funded gravy train of state organizations supported through a scam of politicians greedy for votes, power and money.


Even the State of the Canadian Cryosphere? But the Canadians are so polite, I can't imagine them being involved in a scam. And are the Chinese really greedy for votes? And in on the same scam with all those American groups? Is the Bush administration telling them to go out and promote climate change science so that he can be re-elected next year? Or is Dick Cheney going to run?

To suggest such a huge scam you must have masses of evidence.
 
Posts: 1205Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
TrueSceptic
One Gold Star
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by M Batchelor:

A corrupt tax-funded gravy train of state organizations supported through a scam of politicians greedy for votes, power and money.

Excellent. Irony at its best. Wink
 
Posts: 554Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
John_M
Two Silver Stars
Posted Hide Post
How do people assess the credibility of Bellamy's article? Are there any pieces of it that are doubtful?
 
Posts: 53Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
realprimate
One Gold Star
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by John_M:
How do people assess the credibility of Bellamy's article? Are there any pieces of it that are doubtful?


My own opinion is it's a whole load of it.

BUT

I emailed
Professor Philip Jones of the CRU-UEA (p.jones@uea.ac.uk) because of one of the postings there.


He emailed me back with the following:-

QUOTE
1934 wasn't that warm globally - just in the USA, so he's confused there. The Hockey Stick is in the latest IPCC Report, so he needs to check his facts rather than taking things from
web sites.
UNQUOTE

I'm sure he won't mind me quoting him verbatim.
 
Posts: 559Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Son of Mulder
One Gold Star
Posted Hide Post
Legjoints
quote:
From their graph it looks like the average temperature in the 8 years after 1998 is higher than in the 8 years before 1998. One year is not statistically significant. You have to look at the trend and the trend is quite clearly going in an upwards direction.


And as the Grand Old Duke of York marched his men down the hill he said "Of course on average we're higher now than when were at the top".
 
Posts: 639Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
TrueSceptic
One Gold Star
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by John_M:
How do people assess the credibility of Bellamy's article? Are there any pieces of it that are doubtful?

Are you serious? On many points he shows that he has not read what he refers to, lacks basic comprehension or is being dishonest if he has, or is simply repeating stuff he's obtained from "sceptic" sources without checking it himself*. As examples, I suggest you check what Lovelock really said and whether the 2007 IPCC report does have any "hockey stick" graphs. Those are both very easy to check.

*As he did a few years ago when he made claims about glaciers.
 
Posts: 554Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message