Open mike 16/02/2010

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, February 16th, 2010 - 14 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

It’s open for discussing topics of interest, making announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

Comment on whatever takes your fancy.

The usual good behaviour rules apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

14 comments on “Open mike 16/02/2010 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Pascal's bookie 1
    16 February 2010 at 7:44 am

    Item: Masters of the Universe rig online poll re “Robin Hood tax”.

    Item: Masters of the Universe may be in some shit.

  2. Seti 2
    16 February 2010 at 8:04 am

    Quite a popular story in The Times this morning, judging by the number of comments –

    World may not be warming, say scientists

    • mickysavage 2.1
      16 February 2010 at 9:07 am

      You mean this passage Seti?

      Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.

      “It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,’ he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.’

      The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.

      Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.’

      • Seti 2.1.1
        16 February 2010 at 9:49 am

        “You mean this passage?”

        Depends on your agenda. What about this passage –

        “The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,’ said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

        or this –

        “The story is the same for each one,’ he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.’

        The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

        The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

        “We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,’ he said.

        • BLiP 2.1.1.1
          16 February 2010 at 12:30 pm

          Ahhh, yes. John Christy who has been laughed out of scientific circles and left scampering around ideological sites peddling his statistical nonsense and Ross McKitrick Exxon-Mobil’s pet boffin.

          • winston smith 2.1.1.1.1
            16 February 2010 at 5:26 pm

            Ahhh, yes, BLiP who has as much scientific credibility as Al Gore… seeing you don’t like John Christy try these names on for size:

            Jeffrey A. Dorale,
            Bogdan P. Onac,
            Joan J. Fornós
            Joaquin Ginés
            Angel Ginés
            Paola Tuccimei
            David W. Peate1

            Don’t recognise them? They’re the geoscientists who discovered that the sea level was a metre higher 81,000 years ago than it is today. Oh, and they also noted that the CO2 levels were lower back then as well. Go figure.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/11/new-paper-in-science-sea-level-81000-years-ago-1-meter-higher-while-co2-was-lower/

            • BLiP 2.1.1.1.1.1
              16 February 2010 at 7:55 pm

              Best way to deal with those bozos is like this.

            • lprent 2.1.1.1.1.2
              16 February 2010 at 8:38 pm

              Gez – if you go back a billion years and you’ll find that the sealevel was MUCH lower and the CO2 was sky-high.

              Climate is the result of many processes happening at different times and rates. Your simplistic cause and effect ideas truly show your inherent ignorance of geological history.

              To prove that isn’t the case, explain what the process effects were operating in that pre-cambian period to cause that effect. For that matter explain the effects 81k years ago. In both cases I bet that you couldn’t even start to describe anything more coherent than “It happened”. Face it – you’re a scientific ignoramus.

              The question is what does throwing millions of tonnes of extra CO2 into the atmosphere today do? After we’ve had 10k years of relative climatic stability on which our agricultural technology developed in that period depends on.

            • prism 2.1.1.1.1.3
              16 February 2010 at 9:50 pm

              WS The point is I’m here now. Billions of years ago I wasn’t here and so I wasn’t affected by the climate then. I don’t feel like sitting back and saying oh well, that’s how they used to have it in the bad very very old days. The climate may be going through a cycle but there are a lot more people that it will affect, and I want the brains that we have developed to think of ways to ameliorate it not stand around yelling and thumping soap boxes.

              What a bloody waste of time you argufying guys are – with all your climate denial. The past is interesting and should illustrate the present but people who can’t think things through will have to watch out or their brains will be ‘rust to dust’.

          • prism 2.1.1.1.2
            16 February 2010 at 10:04 pm

            Is that their provenance. Interesting.

  3. The Chairman 3
    16 February 2010 at 11:57 am

    Democracy for sale?
    No limit on lobby group election spending

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3334253/No-limit-on-lobby-group-election-spending