Comments on: Off to Washington http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/01/off-to-washington/ by Steve McIntyre Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:33:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: fFreddy http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/01/off-to-washington/#comment-44992 Mon, 17 Apr 2006 07:40:24 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=556#comment-44992 Heh. Thanks, Peter.

]]> By: Peter Hearnden http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/01/off-to-washington/#comment-44991 Mon, 17 Apr 2006 07:33:48 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=556#comment-44991 Re#60 Not sure this is really my job :) , but I’m pretty sure it’s on Thursday evening http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/thebattleforinfluence/pip/abkim/

]]> By: fFreddy http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/01/off-to-washington/#comment-44990 Mon, 17 Apr 2006 05:51:52 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=556#comment-44990 Re #42 , Ned

I spoke to the reporters who told me they were working on a one-hour piece on climate alarmism which will air on April 17 on BBC Radio 4 (apparently accessible in the US on the BBC website for 7 days starting April 17).

I don’t see this on today’s listing. Does anyone have any further information on what’s happening with this report ?

]]> By: J. Sperry http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/01/off-to-washington/#comment-44989 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:31:24 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=556#comment-44989 jae (#54), I’m sure you mean “AR4″ instead of “TAR”. (TAR, Third Assessment Report, was completed in 2001 and won’t be changed. AR4, Fourth Assessment Report, is what they are working on now.)

]]> By: John A http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/01/off-to-washington/#comment-44988 Sat, 04 Mar 2006 10:43:59 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=556#comment-44988 Ned,

I hope you don’t mind but your eyewitness observation is going to be a new posting…

]]> By: Armand MacMurray http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/01/off-to-washington/#comment-44987 Sat, 04 Mar 2006 10:11:40 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=556#comment-44987 More thanks, Ned, for the excellent summary!

]]> By: Paul http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/01/off-to-washington/#comment-44986 Sat, 04 Mar 2006 08:39:54 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=556#comment-44986 The bits about correlating temperatures with things like German unemployment etc. just amaze me.

That is undergraduate level econometrics these days, after its was pointed out almost 30 (!) years ago what can happen when a time series possesses a unit root.

And here we are, some of the world leaders in climate science wh are making past temperature reconstructions based on statistical techniques having to get this pointed out to them!!!

It is truly, truly frightening

]]> By: fFreddy http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/01/off-to-washington/#comment-44985 Sat, 04 Mar 2006 07:07:55 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=556#comment-44985 Ned, that’s great, thank you.
Given the earlier comment about this being part of a turf battle between the Science Committee and the Energy Committee, I think that changing the defined task is going to prove to have been very unwise.

]]> By: jae http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/01/off-to-washington/#comment-44984 Sat, 04 Mar 2006 03:35:12 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=556#comment-44984 Methinks, there are gonna be lots of sparks from this Panel. The IPPC TAR may well have some very abrupt corrections that say, in essence, “we think there are major problems with AGW, but more research is needed.”

]]> By: John G. Bell http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/01/off-to-washington/#comment-44983 Sat, 04 Mar 2006 03:29:57 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=556#comment-44983 Thanks Ned! Cynical yes, but I still tune in. Hope they do a smashing job of it and make us BBC skeptics eat some crow.

]]>