Hi Stewgreen
Why are you suddenly changing the debate towards interviewers rather than interviewees? Strange.

The scientific consensus on climate change, means that for there to be 'balance' on the BBC you'd need a whole load of PhD scientists against one. Given there are very few 'skeptic' scientists, you resort to people like Lawson or Phillips (ie humanities graduates with no scientific training). This is ludicrous, and I have spent quite a long time giving other scientific examples where this would be ludicrous (particle physics, genetics etc). So far, none of you has picked up this argument.

Thanks.

Monty I have no time right now, but just a throw away response...

So you are saying you can model long period chaotic system to such a degree of accuracy as to base a restructuring of the global society?

Interesting. So why are you all still around? And haven't moved onto other things? If the models are so perfect surely you should be moving into other areas?

You have either modelled the chaotic system to perfection, or the model, because of the nature of chaotic systems, is a piece of .... sorry scientific decorum prevents.

Like comparing real life to GTA V. Looks good, makes an impression, keeps lots of people in employment, provides endless entertainment, but not really real life.

Job done? It isn't? Or it is?

And you compare climate science to particle physics? In your dreams mate.

Hi GrantB
Why choose 1998? What happens if you choose earlier years (actually, I know the answer....and so do you!).

I hope you don't cherrypick as much in theoretical physics.....

Hi Jiminy. Like you, I have little time now. However,
You said: "So you are saying you can model long period chaotic system to such a degree of accuracy as to base a restructuring of the global society?"

You do know the difference between initial value and boundary value problems? If not, there's quite a lot of literature. I don't need to know the short-term chaotic dynamics of a complex system if I'm interested in understanding its long-term evolution. IOW....it's irrelevant what the small scale behavior of the weather is like if we want to know if the seasons exist.

Thanks.

Hi Mike Jackson
You said: "The big laugh is that half the time it's the pro-AGW speaker who is likely to be the arts graduate but again, presumably because they are "on-message" that makes it all right".

Rubbish. Most of the time the BBC used Myles Allen or Peter Stott or Brian Hoskens or similar. The 'skeptic' is usually someone like Peiser (sports psychology) or Lawson (PPE).

From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

Monty. Your history merely demonstrates that you have had considerable success at following the money and that you now have compelling personal reasons to avoid asking whether your adherence to the warmist cause has any proper basis.

Sorry stewgreen for not answering your questions at the top.

My view is that if you want "balance" in a debate then let's have it! Let's have dozens of PhD scientists versus Lindzen, or Curry, or whoever. I note that both are 'lukewarmers' and completely accept the basic science behind AGW (like Nic Lewis and others too).

BTW...this means that you will all attack the the nutty swivel-eyed loons who regularly post here? Right?

I don't think there is a 'balance' on the BBC if you have a scientist versus an English graduate who doesn't have a clue about the science.

Thanks. And I must get some work done!

Ecclesiastical Uncle: No, I have had considerable success in being a scientist.
Thanks.

Seasons? Unfortunate choice. Newton has something to say with that... of all the interconnecting rhythms of a multi-layered chaotic system that one is fairly easy to have as an input.

Perhaps chose a better one if you were rushed...

Hmm... Short-term? With a 4 billion year old planet. Please define short term. Precisely define it, because if you cannot then you have problem. You cannot define short term can you?

I see you didn't answer my point...

From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

Monty. While eschewing any claim to any expertise at any science, I have over the years, both socially and professionally, met scientists who have ranged from junior to senior. Examining my memories, I conclude that none of the more senior ever claimed success at being a scientist in the way you have; and regret, therefore, that your 1.23 pm declaration of success is so uncharacteristic as to be barely credible. Maybe, however, you are merely naturally bombastic. But in that case why should we believe that anything else you tell us is the strict unadulterated truth?

Also 'being a scientist'. But what sort - a conventional climate science scientist?

Martin A

> But in any case, who cares what a person's qualifications
> are if they talk sense about the subject they are talking
> about.

I think you do care. Anyone who is in any doubt that you would like us to believe that you are a highly experienced engineer hasn't been reading your comments. The implication is, trust me I'm an engineer, I know what I'm talking about (and I have no reason to doubt that you are indeed an experienced engineer). Many other times I've read people boasting that a supposedly large number of the contributors to the blog are "engineers" or "scientists" or some such to give their, often doubtful, opinions some extra strength. So asking who cares about a person's qualifications is silly - I've even been asked for mine. The point about these claims of experience is that it allows readers who have no relevant skills (and my guess is that I am with the majority there) to judge what contributors are saying. Argument from authority and all that...

In fact the only people whose status and qualifications seem to be unimportant if not detrimental to their credibility are climate scientists, the very people who know something of what they write.