The whole document spins more than Monty Panesar's off breaks, but here is a gem- He says that the program alleges that the scientific process is biased. Can anyone recall such allegation in the program? The trickster that he is, he put this allegation right at the bottom of the pile. He then uses this 'alleged' allegation to eugolize the IPCC report saying that 'it is the most authoratative voice on climate change. It's assessements represent the consensus of thousands of scientists worldwide. '
Secondly why dont you spend some time trying torefute the other 11 important points made by the Defra scientists instead of picking on his 11th.Poor chap is only a politician and probably meant 10 points at the start and lost count.
Will you try the other 10 or have you no answer fir these?
Firstly Monty do spin the ball more than Ashley G anyway.
Secondly, don't you think spinner Milband should change his photo in the website? I mean you don't have to emphasise the sinister nature of your work by having such a slimy photo there. Why can't he learn from Tony?
Thirdly, how about this for a googly
"4. Most of the 20th century warming occurred before 1940, when carbon dioxide emissions were still relatively low.
This first statement is not correct. Global temperatures did rise during the first few decades of this century, but much of the warming seen this century has occurred since around 1970 (0.4°C of the total 0.74°C warming). Global temperatures have risen almost continuously since 1950. The linear growth rate in temperature during the past 50 years is nearly twice that of the last 100 years. While the IPCC concluded that much of the warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to greenhouse gases, the cause of the warming in the first half of the century is not clear. Current thinking is that it was likely a mixture of natural and human factors."
Global temperature has risen almost continuosly since 1950???? How about the mini ice age between 1940-1980 acknowledged by everyone. He ends up basically agreeing with the allegation at the same time saying that he is denying it.
New labour spin. Now only if we can teleporte it onto Ashley G!
The section with Paul Reiter (the malaria guy) includes a section of film about an article in the NY Times accusing the IPCC process of corruption and censorship.
To be fair, this was one part of the programme where the opposition were given a say, as the IPCC response to this allegation was read out.
Given that I have made points 1, 2, part of 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 within these forums, I do not think this is spin.
Scepticism with IPCC of course does not mean sceptcism of the scientific process. As I said, I think Milband is well aware of the distinction and put this at the bottom of the pile to find a reason to eugolize about IPCC
Global temperature has risen almost continuosly since 1950???? How about the mini ice age between 1940-1980 acknowledged by everyone. He ends up basically agreeing with the allegation at the same time saying that he is denying it.
I did say in the "A list of errors" thread that the graph on the graph had been manipulated by the Swindle programme, but it didn't seem worth arguing about the length of the cool spell.
there is a point here which i have raised elsewhere that has not been answered.
Between 1910 and 1940 ave global temp rose by 0.4degc and between 1980 and 2004 it was roughly the same amount. The so called mini ice age 1940 to?? was media hype and has been discussed to death.
But......Why was the rise in temp 1910 to 1940 so steep - as steep as 1980 to 2004? No one seemed to think it was significant then or now??
i agree about the picture -maybe he has a dog he put in his place. I spin the ball further than Ashley.
No. The mini ice age never happened - it was media hype. Look at the figures.
What i am interested by is that we had a 30 year warming period 1910 to 1940 very similar in increaese to 1980 to 2004 but no one seems to have mentioned it. Why?
Robmb, Milband does not have the answer as evident from his spinning blog. His spinning answer is that it may be a mixture of natural of human cause but he doesn't know! Poor chap. I wonder why he says that he is confident, in fact in no doubt, that humans are behind global warming. Don't you find his confidence illogical if he doesn't know why the temperature rose earlier?
Sorry WIYM i thought you called it the Mini Ice Age. The figures i have from the Nasa site show an almost 0 change in temp 1940 to 1980. Idea of Mini Ice Age very much media not science.
What about my point (which is surely in support of your argument) that 1910 tp 1940 saw the same increase as 1980 to 2004. This worries me as i do see AGW but cant explain this??
Ofcourse the term 'Ice Age' is used as a metaphor for the period of global cooling between 1940 and 1980 and as you correctly surmise there isn't a explanation for the warming between 1910 to 1940.
But remember also that the cooling of temperature between 1940 and 1980 is not a CO2 explanation. The explanation for this comes relatively recently when this discrepency was noted an explanation was required as an absence of this would have falsified the CO2 theory. The presence of sulphate aerosols was then introduced as an additional variable and its effect was taken to explain the global cooling between this period. Now on this basis, some variable can also be thought of that was present during the 1910 and 1940 period that can explain the global warming. It has not been made as this is not thought critical (don't ask me why, I don't know). The point of course is that there is an element of making it up as we are going along about this whole business
Milband spin' Current thinking is that it was likely a mixture of natural and human factors.' He is of course referring to your query why the temperature rose between 1910 and 1940.
Presumbly he has got this information from the IPCC report, his bible for information on climate change.
Now listen to this report of Royal Society that talks about IPCC findings 'The IPCC found that the dominant influences on climate change in the early part of the 20th Century were likely to be a small increase in solar output and a decrease in average volcanic activity. However, such natural factors cannot explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century...'
So the IPCC has found the existing peer reviewed literature explains global warming during 1910-1940 due to natural factors (Cosmic ray amongst them. Hey they do accept natural causes of global warming even in the 20th Century). The IPCC report does not talk about humans being responsible for this phase of global warmth. But note that spinner Milband does. He just can't let go of an opportunity to blame the humans for global warming.
Now listen to this report of Royal Society that talks about IPCC findings 'The IPCC found that the dominant influences on climate change in the early part of the 20th Century were likely to be a small increase in solar output and a decrease in average volcanic activity. However, such natural factors cannot explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century...'
So the IPCC has found the existing peer reviewed literature explains global warming during 1910-1940 due to natural factors (Cosmic ray amongst them. Hey they do accept natural causes of global warming even in the 20th Century)
As has been said a number of times, the IPCC reports identify a number of climate forcings, and include changes to solar output.
Solar output as used in models is different to the effect described in the programme which was impact of solar magnetic field on incidence of cosmic rays.
But Milband of course does not say that the global warming between 1910 and 1940 is due to natural causes (as suggested by Royal Society and IPCC). He says that it is a mix between natural and human cause. Now why would he say that, unless he wants the public to believe his pet theory that humans are ALWAYS reponsible for global warming?
If we are to believe that the 1980 to 2004 increase of 0.4degc in AGT has been largely caused by the burning of fossil fuels, which the eveidence in my opinion suggests is the case, then for peace of mind i would like to know what reasons are given for the warming, which is the same in scale, over 1910 to 1940. Is there any good research that i can look at??
The RS take on the IPCC seems very vague. Surely there is something more concrete than this.
Leave poor Mr Millband alone. He actually says (fairly) - ' While the IPCC concluded that much of the warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to greenhouse gases, the cause of the warming in the first half of the century is not clear. Current thinking is that it was likely a mixture of natural and human factors.'
'Current thinking' presumbly is that of Royal Soc and IPCC (both institutions dear to spinner Milband's heart) and they think that this is due to natural causes. I am not being pedantic here but this is exactly how the misinformation about global warming has been spread in the society by the popular media and now blogs of politicians
You choose to miss the point again. The line before the one you keep quoting leaves all options open. Wish you would open your mind and stop trying to spin the spin the spin the spin...............................
Remember you cant be out to a no ball - i dont take runs anymore only 4s and 6s.
I am interested in the science and hoped on one of these threads to find some answers or pointers to answers. Is there or is there not a real explianantion for the rise in AGT 1910 to 1940??
Remember you cant be out to a no ball - i dont take runs anymore only 4s and 6s.
I am interested in the science and hoped on one of these threads to find some answers or pointers to answers. Is there or is there not a real explianantion for the rise in AGT 1910 to 1940??
I have asked the experts! Watch this space - hopefully...
Have asked the experts??? do you mean there are no ready links, cut and paste research or the bible of information on climate change-IPCC to explain this phenemenon.
Seriously though, I would love to have the explantion as well. Thanks Steve_M
While we wait for Steve's explanation it may be interesting to note how our climate experts have made projection for climate change. This bit is from Royal Society report explaining how climate change projection are achieved
"Climate change and NOT easy to predict. In order to make projections about climate change in the future, the IPCC developed a set of scenarios that describe possible global emissions of greenhouse gases. These scenarios produced estimates of various concentrations of global greenhouse emissions in the atmosphere upto 2100, taking into account different projected trends in demographic, economic and technologica developments, as well as changes in the political environment. Economists and sociologists helped to develop these scenarios. These scenarios include the whole range of likely changes in emissions of greenhouse gases. .....because the models are based on scenarios of future human activities, their results should be considered to be projections rather than predictions.
How confident are you of the climate projections based on this information?
