Thanks to Réaumur I was alerted to this. It is a transcript from the BBC World at One – 27/09/2013 (starts at 7:28)
(BBC presenter) The last time the scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, reported, they said it was very likely that man’s actions were the principle cause of the warming planet. This morning six years on, they say it’s extremely likely. It’s a simple phrase but it follows a big program of work involving authors in thirty nine countries. As an official body there was quite a bit of haggling in the hours preceding publication though, a process in which government sponsored scientists have to agree every phrase.
It’s then down to the governments to use the findings as a basis for a new treaty for tackling climate change. The energy and climate change secretary Ed Davey says it will strengthen the UK government’s demand for tougher international targets to reduce carbon emissions.

(Ed Davey) This piece of evidence that we are seeing from Stockholm is probably the most robust, rigourous, most peer reviewed piece of science in human history. I think it has put the question of whether climate change is happening beyond doubt. We have got to stop debating this issue as if we are some members of the flat earth society and get on and act.”

Even some of those who support the panel’s findings though are critical about the way it operates. Lord Stern who wrote a report for the last government on the economic effects of climate change has complained about filtering and haggling leading to bland conclusions.
That is nothing compared to the dissatisfaction felt by Bob Carter. An Australian geologist and Oceanographer he accuse the IPCC of being unscientific in its approach. He has contributed to an alternative non-governmental group calling itself the NIPCC.

(Bob Carter) The difference between between the two reports is this. That the IPCC has an idea. It is not actually their idea it was why they were set up. They were told to go away and consider the business, not of climate change in the round, but of climate change caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. So what it does it that it goes out and looks for evidence, for humans having a dangerous impact on climate. Now real science doesn’t work that way.

Now as you probably know science proceeds in general by setting up what is called a null hypothesis which is the simplest hypothesis. And that is: we look out the window and we see everyday change in the weather and in the longer term the climate. The distribution and patterns of nesting and flowering and so on of animals and plants. So we know the real world is variable the whole time.

The null hypothesis therefore is: that those changes we observe are due to natural variation. And the NIPCC report tries to invalidate that hypothesis. And the really interesting thing is that after looking at several thousand papers just like the IPCC, we come to the opposite conclusion. One of our conclusions is that climate has always changed and it always will. There is nothing unusual about the modern magnitudes or rates of change: of temperature; of ice-volume; of sea-level, or of extreme weather events.

The IPCC said today that having previously said that it thought it was very likely that man was responsible for global warming, the activity of man being the main reason for global warming. It now says it is extremely likely, 95% certain [delusion] that is a very different conclusion to yours.

The problem with what you just said to me about 95% probability is that it is hocus pocus science. In science the phrase 70% probable or 90% probable had definite meanings. They imply controlled trials, they imply numerical quantitative information objectively assessed. If you ask the IPCC they will tell you that when they use the term 95% probable it is based on the expert opinion of a group of people gathered around a table. It is completely wrong to use probability terminology to describe what is albeit an expert opinion. Continue reading →

I’ve been posting on blogs all morning. Overwhelmingly the reaction has been hostile. That could be because those sites which are hostile were first off the mark, but I notice that the BBC and Guardian are both pumping out the propaganda.
In a way I think this increased confidence by the IPCC is a bonus. It is just so preposterous and so simple to understand that one can’t be more confident when you’ve got every major prediction wrong, that this report is getting some very hostile comments such as the following:

I’ve used the analogy in the past that when an avalanche is about to fall, it is usually preceded by a host of lesser avalanches. This is not a small avalanche. It is a substantial crack in the propaganda front on global warming and growing as I watch. Whilst it may not be the final straw that breaks the camel’s back it is a clear indication that the whole rotten edifice is going to go sometime soon.

I am just listening to the IPCC spokesman.

There is a simple rule most of us use. If you are caught making a big lie, then we don’t trust anything else being said. He has just said that the models were “policy relevant”. This is entirely at odds with the lack of confidence amongst leading climate modellers at the Royal Society meeting in October last year.

The IPCC have just lost all credibility as a body advising governments.

That doesn’t mean everything they say is a lie. Nor does it mean that we cannot trust any individual. But it does mean that as a group this body is delusional about their ability to understand or predict the climate.

I am not a Nazi Paedophile, but you would think so if you believed the hate speech directed at people like me by certain politicians and sections of the media and this hate speech is fuelled by those like the IPCC who mislead the public. Continue reading →

In what Prof Judith Curry describes as “incomprehensible to me” and I would describe as “delusional”, the latest IPCC report (AR5) is likely to say the IPCC are MORE CERTAIN that humans caused the latter 20th century warming or as they put it in AR5:

It is “extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010.”

This assertion by the IPCC is false. It is not backed by the consensus of the experts; it isn’t supported by statistics; it isn’t supported by logic, and it is patently obvious from the 20th century climate data.
Not supported by the consensus of experts Continue reading →

I wrote the following post on Climate Audit:
A great article, but I’m not sure I agree with you assertion about the IPCC blaming natural variation.
The way I see it is as follows. If the scale of natural variation is of sufficient magnitude to counter all the predicted warming then it must be similar in magnitude.
However, if the scale of natural variation is that large, then it is a prime candidate for much of the change in the 20th century and therefore as natural variation is a good candidate for much of the warming, then much less should be attributed to man-made warming.
So, not only does this mean natural variation is as large as man-made warming was predicted to be … but the actual (not predicted) amount of man-made warming must be smaller.
As a result of the combination of these two it is more than likely that most of the warming is due to natural variation.
Steve McIntyre’s response was to cut the above, leave the comment praising the article and leave the following:

A great article, but I’m not sure I agree with you assertion about the IPCC blaming natural variation.

snip

Steve: Sorry about the snip, but your speculation is a diversion from the points of the article. I don’t agree with your point but dont wish to debate it at this time. As to IPCC blaming natural variability for the discrepancy between models and observations: read their own words quoted in the post.

I have now asked him to remove the entire comments as it is unfair to leave me appearing to disagree with something he has edited to suggest is a “good article” without allowing me the means to back up my argument.

There are days when you just can’t help doing something daft and today was one of them.
I have been trying for a while to think of a name for a sceptic forum … which for obvious reasons would be problematic due to the Sceptic/Skeptic divide.
The censorship of Anthony Watts today was just the kick in the AR5 to get me into action from which

TalkWatts.com

was formed.  I will probably regret it tomorrow … but hey … what the heck, life is for living and in the remote chance that it is successful I too will no doubt become just as grumpy and Mr Watts.

When I discovered the true extent of hate speech used against sceptics and the lack of hate speech by sceptics I wrote an article combining the comments by the BBC and a UK government minister about sceptics into the title. Or to be more precise, I wrote a commentary preceding my raw notes I had taken when trying to find example “robust” comments from both sides. It was because there was such extreme comments on one side and very little on the other that I felt it necessary to make people aware of this and when I reflected on it I felt it actually amounted to hate crime under UK law and so reported it to the police (I have not heard since)
In a post on WattsUpWithThat on hate speech from Al Gore, I said something like:

“Whilst writing something about the ‘heated argument’ on climate I found it far too easy to find the most horrendous assertions by alarmists and far too difficult to find anything comparable by sceptics and as a result I wrote an article which started: ‘If I had actually said “Climate scientists are Nazi Paedophiles” how long would it be before the BBC and the whole warmist chatterarti of academia would be condemning me? So, why do government ministers and BBC broadcasters feel they can libel me in precisely this way?'”

Please note: the phrase “paedophile” was used TWICE by presenters on the BBC. Once I woke up to this phrase being used to mean people like me. The phrase “Nazi” was used by a UK government minister.
Anthony Watts chose to censor not only the words used by the BBC and Government ministers but also to censor any discussion of this appalling behaviour.
This is precisely why this kind of hate speech continues and that is why I added the comments to the article on Social Good Summit turns to hatefest – Al Gore likens skeptics to racists, homophobes and violent alcoholics.
When this morning I saw my post had been snipped. I then added a comment along the lines of:

“Anthony you are right on so many things but wrong on this.

Unless or until we confront this kind of hate speech from people such as the BBC & government ministers, it will continue. Yes it is ugly, but that is precisely why when I discovered the extent and horrific nature of this hate speech I reported it to the UK police. However we all know that the police will do nothing until people like you who are in a position to make a fuss stand up.

Are you prepared to stand up or will you just effectively condone it?”

When I returned I found:

I think Anthony has answered the question.
Addendum
As I do not have verbatim records of exactly what I wrote, I have added this comment:

Anthony, if you have them available, I would appreciate original copies of what I posted so that I can ensure my account of this exchange on my blog is as accurate as possible.

I regret that in the mood Anthony appears to be in, this comment is unlikely to receive any reply and will also be snipped. However, although Anthony’s actions are regrettable and counter-productive, we must not lose sight of the fact that the real criminal here are those who used the hate speech like the BBC and UK government ministers.
However, I suspect if it had been US government ministers and US broadcasters Anthony would have taken a very different course of action.
Addaddendum
I was recently a juror on a case involving domestic abuse over an extended period. Whilst I cannot discuss details this experience was instrumental in forming my views. We sceptics must speak out and should certainly not hide this kind of abusive behaviour by high profile warmists.

I started the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum in 2012 and I spent much of the next year trying various ways  to get publicity but without much success. Most of the time was spent trawling the internet looking for news to put on the SCEF website, but occasionally this process highlighted something worth going to the media and then I’d start a frenzy of activity trying to get a press release ready. But with the exception of one story about the corruption of parliament, these stories failed to get any press coverage. We even produced a leaflet – but again nothing came of it. Unfortunately, with so little success I had no idea where I was going wrong.
So, after the end of Kyoto, I decided that I had had enough of fruitless campaigning and put SCEF on hold. But seeing that UKIP were the only party with any common sense on climate, early this  year I decided to join UKIP. Very unexpectedly I was hastily given the job of party spokesman on Energy. I was naive. I took the job, because I thought the press would pay more interest to press releases on energy and climate from UKIP. But the reality was no different from SCEF and it turned out the Scottish organisation had no more idea how to get press coverage than I. (Incredibly, it was not even possible to get information about climate to UKIP members in Scotland as there was no newsletter, magazine or other media through which to communicate ideas to Scottish members.)
However, as a spokesman of a well known organisation, clearly I no longer had the excuse that the lack of press coverage was because we were too small or not known. But they certainly did not give coverage to any of the deluge of material about climate which I was asked to send them by the Scottish leadership. There was something more fundamentally wrong.  I talked to a few journalists – some friends – some less friendly.
Then one day, when a journalist in the Glasgow Herald nearly printed a story but it was ditched at the last minute I pushed the issue and asked why they were not printing my press releases. They said it was because:

their boss said we were just opinionated individuals pushing our views.
(By which I took “we” to mean sceptics in

I learnt a lot from that exchange – not by denying any truth in it – as many sceptics are want to do, but by really understanding what they were saying – particularly when considered in light of various other comments from journalists and my own problems with sceptics.
Unfortunately, there was probably a lot of truth in what they said and combining my experience, I would now like to suggest the reasons we do not get good press coverage is as follows: Continue reading →

!