I add this link not because I especially expect the Bish to post some form of rebuttal, but more an invitation to readers to play "spot the inaccuracy and/or spot the logical flaw"

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/the_co2_is_plant_food_crock.php

This is the worst sort of uninformed video I can imagine. It is pure propaganda and, worse, the readers of Deltiod in the most approve of it.

Items I spotted during my viewing included now redacted headlines (rice yields to fall), scientific inaccuracy (warmer air holds more moisture, rather than the condensation temperature of H2O increases with temperature (independent gases etc etc), and or course the link of Russian warmth and Pakistan rain to climate rather than weather. Finally, the comments about two 'once in 500 years' events in 15 years' showing a complete non-understanding of climate event statistics.

There is of course the entire discussion about CO2 levels to take pieces of.

This video is crap and only serves to make me think I might just be right. It also makes me quite angry that such unintelligent propaganda is being produced and consumed by many.

Apologies to The Bish for originally posting this in the wrong place.
I sent this email to Chris Huhne today and titled it "Prof Bob Watson lied to conceal the truth about CO2"

Not sure where to post this so it goes here: I would welcome comments)

email to Chris Huhne today:

On the 15th of July The Guardian hosted a debate on the Climate gate emails. I was fortunate enough to attend and even more fortunate to be able to ask a question.
At 63 minutes 30 seconds into the Guardian audio record Bob Watson states "You put greenhouse gas into the atmosphere it must warm, the question is when and how much".
At 75 minutes I asked the following question:
"Mr Watson states that if you put CO2 in the atmosphere you get warming, the ice core records show that at the end of each of the interglacials in the current ice age, CO2 rose for up to 2500 years after the hot point of the interglacial and the Earth cooled during the whole of that time. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that CO2 put into the atmosphere causes some warming but often the natural cycles will completely drown what it is doing?"
Mr Watson's answer contained the following:
The physics of the radiation transfer is quite straightforward, it is quite simple physics." ( This area of the science is the LEAST well understood of all the climate science).
He then says:
"even the most ardent sceptics like Dick Lindzen do agree that that the greenhouse effect is real and do agree the temperature will warm, the question is whether it is on the low end like Dick says or whether it is on the higher end like many other scientists (say)"
Prof Watson does not dispute the ice core records of temp v CO2 during the ice age and the change from ice age to interglacial and back again, he simply says it is complicated.
What the ice core records show is that once the hottest point of the interglacial has passed, CO2 continues to rise for as much as 2500 years and the Earth cools for all of that time.
Mr Watson states that because of this increase in CO2 the Earth "must warm".
However not only does the Earth not warm during this period of rising CO2, it continues to cool all the way back to the ice age and the next warming takes place over 100,000 years later.
I suggest that you pass my comments on to Mr Watson and suggest that either he considers a liable action against me or alternatively he explains himself to you.

Colin Brooks
Aug 19, 2010 at 2:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterDung

I shall now put on my 'innocent' look and observe that we've seen frequent press releases in latter days trumpeting the issues of climate, all in the 'warm' direction. This is obviously in the way of journalism, there is news so let's report it.

Today we have a spectacular new paper which is the statistical equivalent of North Korea holeing a US carrier below the waterline, and I've been waiting for mention of it on the BBC web site (keeping a close eye on the 'Norfolk' pages) but nothing. Not a thing. I guess Richard Black and his colleagues [CL waves and says 'Hi' coz he knows RB et al read the Bish tho' they'd rather not admit it] feel that they have to wait until RC or other tame 'experts' tell them what the proper answer is before reporting it with all appropriate caveats, corrections, and corrigenda. Fair enough, one might think, so why is that not done with every other press release on climate? For example the one that Anthony Watts obtained a retraction for? There is either journalistic integrity, or there is following the line, you can't have it both ways.

If McShane and Wyner is not all over the environmental pages and featured in the 0810 spot of the Today program by the end of the week, in the same way as political, economic or sports news of the same magnitude would be, then it's very clear that the journalists need to admit that they are just placemen. If they have any knowledge, self respect, or integrity, then this would be big news.

...and yes, that is meant to be a direct challenge to them.

New Zealand temperature record now going before the High Court

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4026553/Court-challenge-to-Niwa-climate-records

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/15/coal-fired-power-stations-coalition

Coal-fired power stations win reprieve

Exclusive: Government's decision to put pollution standards 'on hold' raises possibility of dirtiest coal plants going ahead

cont.

Do we think someone in government has finally recognised the possibility of the UK ending up in the dark?

Lord beaver brook, a hard core sceptic badge? Sure, if you don't like any that I have done already ( see cartoonsbyjosh.com) then do email me with ideas or requirements.

You could try the monckton badge, that might frighten a few warmistas.

NIWA's climate data to be challenged in High Court

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2010/08/15/4638eb302183

I put the reference to the McShane and Wyner paper in Unthreaded hoping that you will creat your own thread because I suspect that would attract a greater readership than Unthreaded.

Tks,

RayG

PS: On second read of HSI to better assimilate the details. Looking forward to the study on which you are now embarked.

Hello, all. Follow this link to a C/A post of a paper by McShane and Wyner that is a devastating critique of Mannian statistical and modeling.

climateaudit.org/2010/08/14/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/

From the Conclusions: "Climate scientists have greatly underestimated the uncertainty of proxybased reconstructions and hence have been overconfident in their models." and “Natural climate variability is not well understood and is probably quite large. It is not clear that the proxies currently used to predict temperature are even predictive of it at the scale of several decades let alone over many centuries” and, last, but not least, "Although we assume the reliability of their data for our purposes here, there still remains a considerable number of outstanding questions that can only be answered with a free and open inquiry and a great deal of replication.”

Not good news - Weather is now climate at the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10919460

I thought they were getting over this?