Comments on: Erice 2010

By: John A

John A — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:29:37 +0000

To be honest, its just a place for me to post. I’m not hosting comments because I just don’t have the time or the inclination to moderate them.

By: Mike Rankin

Mike Rankin — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:41:17 +0000

I also tried to make a comment but failed. I have a parallel interest in FT analysis.

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:05:10 +0000

Nice to see this area of analysis being addressed. The comments option at your blog don’t seem to be enabled, though.

By: RoyFOMR

RoyFOMR — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:15:19 +0000

Oops, scroll up two posts on BH to see the thread.
PS, Bishop Hill is the author of the excellent Hockey Stick Illusion. Maybe another book could be in the offing:)

By: RoyFOMR

RoyFOMR — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:04:46 +0000

Superb question Jim. In the hands of a talented investigator and given the suspicions about T adjustments this could go large.
I’ve posted your question on bishop hill

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/8/19/standing-on-the-shoulders-of-pygmies.html?lastPage=true#comment9422324

By: Martin Brumby

Martin Brumby — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 06:16:41 +0000

The most appropriate reform to the IPCC would be an absolutely blanket ban of any “scientist” or bureaucrat who has ever been involved with the organisation, ever receiving a penny of public funding again.

For those select few honest contributors and reviewers, this would have little effect because most are not on the gravy train anyway. Other competent scientists would doubtless find their services greatly in demand from industry trying to repair the damage that has already been done by the cAGW religion.

It might be objected that this approach would be harsh. Not as harsh as the damage already inflicted on the world’s poor.

A more modest reform proposal is to be found in Dr.Roy Spencer’s excellent “The Great Global Warming Blunder” page 142, where he points out that:-
“little or no published evidence exists for natural sources of global warming. But this is primarily because the research community has not been funded to look out for natural sources of climate change. Maybe we should find out what fraction of the total amount of taxpayer money spent on climate research in recent years has gone into investigating possible natural sources of climate change. I would guess that this fraction is very close to zero. In reality, the IPCC’s position is not based on the evidence, but on a lack of evidence. For too long the panel has succeeded in deflecting criticism while hiding behind veil of professes scientific objectivity.”

Have a good time in Sicily!

By: Top Posts — WordPress.com

Top Posts — WordPress.com — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:18:11 +0000

[...] Erice 2010 I’m off to Sicily tonight for the 2010 conference of the World Federation of Scientists, hosted by the [...] [...]

By: Richard Drake

Richard Drake — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:47:31 +0000

So you think the couple of pages on feedbacks in a massive WG1 report of over a thousand pages is sufficient?

My point was that in London last month Steve has already been this radical. If you call that ‘political’, that word means nothing to me (or I believe to him). Certainly it’s not party political, at least in the UK. All the parties pay lip-service to the IPCC here (though the coalition government is rapidly distancing itself from the emission reduction radicals in terms of policy). Nobody is arguing for the next IPCC report to say much more on the central scientific question. But they should be. And Steve already is.

I doubt Professors Lindzen and Happer will have a problem with this point of view, sitting alongside him. It should be good deal of fun for those there.

By: John Whitman

John Whitman — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:45:29 +0000

Steve,

Watch out for the Sicilian version of Grappa. It’s rocket fuel for the libedo.

John

By: John A

John A — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:42:05 +0000

I’ve been blogging on Fourier analysis of climate (and other) datasets. See the fun so far at http://futurehistoric.wordpress.com