BBC apologizes to University of East Anglia

Following in the foot steps of the Sunday Times' retraction of their bogus Jonathan Leake story, the BBC has apologized for falsely stating that UEA researchers had "distorted the debate about global warming to make the threat seem even more serious than they believed it to be". The BBC offers the excuse "that this was a live programme being put together under the pressure of events", which is fair enough, except that it has taken over nine months to make this simple correction, for which, surely, there is no excuse.

Hat tip: BCL.

More like this

Hey, remember how the Sunday Times retracted that bogus Jonathan Leake story which was based on "Research by Richard North"? Now the Sunday Telegraph has retracted and apologized for a bogus story by Christopher Booker and Richard North alleging that Rajenda Pachauri was making millions from his…
This story by Heidi Blake in the Telegraph about how Anthony Watts' findings show that surface temperature records are wrong might sound familiar. That's because it's blatantly plagiarised from Jonathan Leake's story touting Watts' report. Every element in Blake's story was drawn from Leake's…
Via PZ Myers I find Bruce M Hood's story of how Jonathan Leake misrepresented Hood's work: Well, what did I expect? A fair representation in the press and a balanced view from commentators? Come off it. ... First, most of the articles in the press are based on the original article in The Sunday…
Few stories about climatology generated as much attention, positive and negative as one by Jonathan Leake in London's Sunday Times back in January. "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim" claimed that references to threats to the Amazon rainforest from global warming were "based on an…

I know Tim's asked to stop responding to kent's nonsense, but wow! An internet tough guy! I only thought you'd find those on youtube and in chan-boards.

Just gotta remember that by the beeb making these mistakes the deniers achieved their aim in stealing the emails.

The good thing or the important thing about the stolen emails is that no one can should ever underestimate the deniers again. In that respect climategate was a great wake up call and the recent spate on the Guardian's Cif where Richard North steadfastly refused to accept he was wrong over his beat up, 'Amazongate' shows that the deniers will not give up.

That the deniers haven't given up their propaganda battle after climategate fizzled out is not a reason to laugh at them instead its a warning that they will try again. We can laugh at Monckton and yes he may become a general laughing stock but behind him are people like Lombord et al. We can't be complacent that the battle has been won just because a second rate news organisation writes a letter of apology.

Too little, too late. I don't expect hysterics from the BBC, but that was all they had to contribute on this subject. It was excruciating.

And now they start parsing their words? After months of innuendo and "reporting the controversy" which they were busy manufacturing? Pathetic.

As for this non-apology: it's just insulting.

Jeremy C: It is precisely because the BBC isn't second rate that this whole issue is such a problem. We expect more from them. A lot more.

By Didatylos (not verified) on 08 Aug 2010 #permalink

Look Didatylos,

The beeb was caught out just the other week by some guys pretending to hunt urban foxes in London. Other news organisations such as the Guardian were caught out but unlike the beeb the Guardian put its hand up as soon it realised they had been deliberately hoaxed and furthermore saw the [funny side of it](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/06/urban-fox-hunt-chris-atkins). Have a look at the video its screamingly funny and worthy of the Chaser.

Yes we should expect more of the beeb and it should deliver on news but can you really say that the six o'clock news and ten o'clock news progs on BBC1 are a match for Channel 4 News or News Hour on PBS in the states and really Jeremy Paxman is just a stroppy apprentice compared to interviewers like Kerry O'Brien and Tony Jones on the ABC. Don't forget it was Tony Jones who took on Martin Durkin and then helmed the priceless TV punch up between Monbiot and Plimer.

It's good to see the BBC climbing down . But why can't I find this on the BBC's website? It follows the same old pattern: denialists move forward - it's loudly trumpeted by the media: months later denialists claims proven to be wrong - media quietly retract. Of course the reverse also happens: obscure AGW paper is corrected - media pretend this is a big deal. Continues ad nauseum

EAU did distort the debate. The only reason the BBC would apologize is because they are hard core warmists. Just like CBC, ABC, and most of the EU countries.We get them on late night radio and their bias knows no limits.
BBC contacted me for an interview but I refused, I know how they work. They asked for ideas for their show, one planet, and I sugested they convert the tons of CO2 produced during the production of their show to the number of tons of carrots that CO2 would grow, and how long that would feed a family in the developing world.....Have yet to hear back from them.

And who are you when you are at work, Kent?

Not a scientist, I would suggest...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 08 Aug 2010 #permalink

Kent,

Distort the debate how, in your own words?

And if the BBC are hard core warmists why did they make the claims that the UEA distorted the debate in the first place?

You sound like a conspiracy troll.

kent has opened my eyes to the cruel hoax of it all. Plant food! Dirty @#$ing hippies! You won't fool me again!

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 08 Aug 2010 #permalink

"The only reason the BBC would apologize is because they are hard core warmists," said the hard-core denialist.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 08 Aug 2010 #permalink

If you are annoyed by the BBCâs belated apology you will be riled by the coverage it gets at The Independent:

[A BBC apology that goes over the top](http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/stephen-glover-column…)

....Such an extreme apology from the BBC is very rare. Was it was necessary? Though there have been three enquiries into the affair that have seemingly exonerated the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, no one disputes that in 1999 Professor Phil Jones sent an email in which he referred to a "trick" to "hide" a decline in global temperatures. If subsequent enquiries have found little or nothing untoward in these remarks, Humphrys's suggestion of distortion does not seem unreasonable in view of what were then the known facts.
I doubt the Today programme would ever grovel to a politician in such terms. Does its exceptional apology confirm that climate change is the new religion demanding absolute respect?

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 09 Aug 2010 #permalink

I don't think you can expect much from an organisation that produces Top Gear and employs Jeremy Clarkson.

It seems that the BBC 'warmists' are keen to make sure it gets warmer.

@12:
>"...If subsequent enquiries have found little or nothing untoward in these remarks, Humphrys's suggestion of distortion does not seem unreasonable in view of what were then the known facts..."

The facts were known from the start. The enquiries were only needed to counter the fictions published by skeptics.
The issue is really whether Humphrys knowledge of the science was sufficient to make the comment.

>no one disputes that in 1999 Professor Phil Jones sent an email in which he referred to a "trick" to "hide" a decline in global temperatures

Bwhahahaha!!

Oh wait, that's not funny. It's just farkin' wrong.

I have yet to see the news media to make any sort of effort to look into who was behind the email hacks on the UEA or the NAS. Or any sort of effort to look into who was behind the people who impersonated IT workers at a University in Canada in an attempt to get access to computers used by climate researchers. There is also the very strange case of the deletion of files about research into Polar Cities from a Gmail account.

ATTENTION NEWS MEDIA!!! THERE IS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE REPORTING ON!!! HINT-HINT-HINT!!!

By Berbalang (not verified) on 09 Aug 2010 #permalink

Humphrys's suggestion of distortion does not seem unreasonable in view of what were then the known facts

In other words, investigative journalism is dead and why should we wait until we understand something before we write about it when we can just report on a big stink made by idiots? That's a better product, anyways.

I wish they'd stop calling themselves journalists. Gossip is a more accurate term for what they do.

I love the bit about:
>"...there have been three enquiries into the affair that have seemingly exonerated..."

Seemingly??? They either did or did not, and in this case, inconveniently for The Independent, they did... talk about spin!

#8
Yes CO2 is a plant food. Plants eat it. That is how the carbon gets into plants and how Oxygen is released by the plants. The carbon in coal used to be part of the atmosphere, which is why the CO2 levels were higher in the past.
People want to see CO2 as the bad guy, but it is essential for the production of food. They want to tax the production of CO2 when they should be paying those who produce it.A ton of CO2 would produce how many tons of Carrots? Worth how much? A worthy question for a term paper? or just a good exam question.

Yes CO2 is a plant food.

i.e. hard-core denialist resorts to strawman.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 09 Aug 2010 #permalink

> People want to see CO2 as the bad guy, but it is essential for the production of food.

OMG! Can somebody quickly contact all the scientists in the world - kent is onto something here - CO2 is not the Nazi gas we all thought it was!!! This is amazing stuff, why is such fundamental science hidden in the comments section of a blog and not in science text books??? C'mon people!

Whatever next? Maybe they'll tell us that the climate has changed before....No? Could it? No way!

Oh well if we are going into the would of kent, then we may as well raise the issue of CO2 being a poison:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia

Kent:
>People want to see CO2 as the bad guy, but it is essential for the production of food. They want to tax the production of CO2 when they should be paying those who produce it.

Actually that is in correct. What people want is a long term future and to minimise the damage done to others. Your moronic views are based on a lack of knowledge about systems in a broader sense. There is not much point in growing more carrots if as a result in 100 years time, the only land where the carrots can be grown is flooded.

It isn't a simple case of short term gains.

Kent (#18):

>Yes CO2 is a plant food. Plants eat it.

Oh. My. F*ing. Imaginary. Friend.

Plants eat nothing.

Get an education. Write something accurate (and correct) if you crave the attention so much.

People want to see CO2 as the bad guy

No, people see additional CO2 as an unnecessary and quite dangerous agent of climate change. There is no want. There is no bad guy. That's projection on your part. You want to see bad guys and you're pointing the finger at the people most capable of understanding climate, claiming that they're liars, fools or both - and your only evidence is that CO2 is useful.

Duh.

But more of something useful isn't necessarily better. Oxygen is useful. Should we take steps to increase the amount of it in the atmosphere?

Oh I do love these arguments about CO2 being so good for plants, us, the universe and everything. More of something you like or is good for you in some way is not necessarily a virtue. You like salt in your food or sunshine, wonderful. Double it, now double it again.

Heart disease and skin cancer, luvverly.

My Venus fly trap eats (or at least digests) flies ;-) (but it's principally after nitrogen then I believe).

I suppose carnivorous plants derive nourishment from their pray, but can they be considered to be eating, in the normally accepted meaning of the word?

Maybe it's a case of close enough is good enough. :)

Last I checked plants absorb CO2 through their stomata, though...

we may as well raise the issue of CO2 being a poison

I don't see how that disproves the claim that CO2 is plant food.

Obviously, if you die of hypercapnia, you'll be pushing up daisies.

By Ezzthetic (not verified) on 10 Aug 2010 #permalink

H2O is also "plant food". A nutrient necessary for plant growth.

Excessive H2O will, of course, cause root rot or suffocation, or even complete destruction by sediment deposition or by erosion.

So when somebody warns a farmer of a coming flood, only a complete goat-rooting in-bred JoNova-contributing retard would respond, "what are you worried about? Water is plant food!"

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 10 Aug 2010 #permalink

"Yes CO2 is a plant food. Plants eat it."

Then that must mean oxygen is ANIMAL FOOD!

Idiot!

This is OT, please excuse.

I understand Tony "climate change is crap" Abbott is going to be on Q&A. Is there any chance bloggers here can try and get in the audience to hammer him on climate change and/or swamp Q&A's SMS, email and video question forum. I'm over here in the UK so I can't picket the ABC studios.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/

Do your worst.

But you'll have to find someone Australian to present the questions for you because they always refer back to the questioner. Watch a few minutes of the Gillard show to see what i mean.

I thought other people would have the same questions as me and would be interested in asking them of Abbott so I wouldn't need to have anyone presnet them in my stead. I always download Q&A on Monday nights here and have already watched the Julia Gillard Q&A and will be downloading the Dick Smith population Q&A on Thursday.

One question I hope someone will ask Abbott is why did he meet with Christopher Monckton back in February - was that bad judgement or extreme whistle blowing?

Duh...... I meant dog whistling, not "whistle blowing"....duh, the donut misses my mouth and I hit it with my eye......

I didn't even think of that. I've asked whether he's reconsidering his view of climate science (absolute crap) in view of the record number of record high temps this year and the simultaneous events in Russia, China, Pakistan.

We're allowed to ask as much as we like, and if you look at the list of questions asked so far, some of them are absolutely, hopelessly unlikely to make it to air. Keeping it down to the limit is quite difficult. But I'll give yours a shot after a bit (a big bit) of a think.

If I was asking Abbott my question I would add to the Monckton preamble, "seeing it is well demonstrated that Monckton is economical with the truth" and leave that hanging.

Heh, Jeremy, how about something along the lines of

"Given that Lord Monckton is economical with the truth, what is the probability of a new world record temperature in 2010?"

You know, not even bother if the question relies on the claim. Just like the Glen Becks of the world.

Kent: Yes, scientists know that CO2 is used in photosynthesis. They're also smart enough to know what a "limiting factor" is, and that issues like land availability, soil nutrients, water and daylight all limit the amount of CO2 a plant can process.

This is high-school biology, dude. You're embarrassing yourself.

By Left_Wing_Fox (not verified) on 11 Aug 2010 #permalink

#37 You don't need to tell me about "limiting factors" dud one. I made my living for 30 + years in the Ag industry and I recognize that CO2 is a major limiting factor. It is why they pump the level in greenhouses to between 1000 and 1500 ppm. If they don't vent the greenhouse most of the CO2 is gone in minutes.
As for Oxygen? it actually is an animal food. It is also very addictive. Withdrawal symptoms occur within minutes of stopping breathing. You can say this is silly but it is also a fact.
The problem with most on this site is they can't tell the difference between reality and fancy land. CO2 is not a problem,the people who believe it is are the problem.

The problem with most on this site is they can't tell the difference between reality and fancy land.

This is why kent needs to put up strawman arguments.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 11 Aug 2010 #permalink

>*I recognize that CO2 is a major limiting factor. It is why they pump the level in greenhouses to between 1000 and 1500 ppm.*

Workig in the Ag sector one might have expected that you realised that to make use of such high CO2 greenhouse tomartoes also have extra amounts of nutrients, pest control, temperature control and water control.

How is the nutriant, temperature and water control going in [Russia at present](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d8599c8-a177-11df-9656-00144feabdc0.html)?

How about the water control for the rice production [in Pakistan](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-07/from-fires-in-russia-to-floodi…).

In Australia (Like Africa and most of the world) our crop limiting factor is certainly not CO2.

I made my living for 30 + years in the Ag industry and I recognize that CO2 is a major limiting factor.

Hmmm, what, you weeded the pots?

CO2's influence as a "limiting factor" is very much contingent on the availability of other growth factprs, as [Left Wing Fox](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/bbc_apologizes_to_university_o…) indicated to you. In a hermetic greenhouse environment the absolute quantities of each parameter can be pumped up to astronomical levels, and in the proportions required for an actual effect, but in the real world of outdoor growth such enhancement, based upon increasing CO2 concentration, is modest at best, often because plants use the availability of extra CO2 to save on energy expenditure imposed by other, uncontrollable growth bottle-necks.

And then there are issues of

  1. diminished nutrient values in CO2-forced growth
  2. negative yeild impacts, in many cases, of the higher temperatures that will accompany increased atmospheric CO2
  3. loss of current water access as precipitation distribution is altered
  4. the fact that fossil fuels (-> agricultural power + industrial nitrogen) and 'fossil' phosphate are both finite resources that will rapidly peak in the coming several decades, rendering moot any putative benefit of CO2

All in all, the CO2 nirvana anticipated by the drooling Denialati will be a major squib.

The negative consequences though will be rather more notable...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 11 Aug 2010 #permalink

#41
Bernard you wrote about finite resources as if you were talking about converting phosphates into energy as in matter/energy conversion. I guess you are not aware of the conservation of matter. They have been saying we are running out of stuff for decades but the goal post keeps on moving.Why is that? Could it be that the theory is just wrong? Perpretated by the guys in the back of the class?
The increased production of food caused by the increased level of CO2 is estimated at between 10 and 15%.
In outdoor growing the limiting factors hardest to control are sunlight and CO2. The others, food and water are less so, unless we are talking about dry land farming.
Increasing CO2 will only increase the temperature if there is more energy currently escaping to space.

"Increasing CO2 will only increase the temperature if there is more energy currently escaping to space.

Posted by: Kent"

Que?

Increasing CO2 will increase temperatures if there is less energy escaping to space when you increase it too.

CO2 and photon radiation have no memory and do not know the past.

#43 Wow you make no sense. There is little energy excaping in the 15 micron window that CO2 absorbs energy. That energy is the energy that CO2 would use to warm the atmosphere. If there is little energy excaping there can be little warming. Yes I know about the other two main frequency windows that CO2 absorbs energy.They are over shadowed by H2O absorbtion.

[Kent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/bbc_apologizes_to_university_o…).

  1. I wasn't.
  2. I am.
  3. Not really.
  4. Because they are not.
  5. No.
  6. No.
  7. Where is your evidence?
  8. Not always.
  9. Really?
  10. Que?!
    1. It's a hard ask to find someone who can be consistently more wrong than Tim Curtin, but you give the old man a good run for his money.

      Congratulations.

      Note: if you want a more detailed response the the one I provided, you could start by supporting your claims with evidence and primary-source references. My two-year old can build a better case out of newspaper and cornflour, than you ever do in any of your comments.

      Congratulations on that, too.

    By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Aug 2010 #permalink

    Lava is mountain food!
    Asphalt is road food!
    Wood is furniture food!
    Sand is glass food!
    Bullshit is denialist food!

    By Mercurius (not verified) on 12 Aug 2010 #permalink

    > If there is little energy excaping there can be little warming.

    No doubt you will regale us shortly with your marvelous calculations that dramatically demonstrate that legions of scientists have *completely overlooked* this blindingly obvious factor in their determinations...

    By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Aug 2010 #permalink

    If there is little energy excaping there can be little warming.

    Excaping. What Superman does before he gets into the shower.

    Why do those alarmists claim we should get a surge protector to protect our computers from lightning strikes?

    Electricity is computer food.

    By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 12 Aug 2010 #permalink

    Kent write:

    >*In outdoor growing the limiting factors hardest to control are sunlight and CO2. The others, food and water are less so, unless we are talking about dry land farming.*

    Fistly dryland farming is hugely important, [especially for the world's most important crop](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dryland_farming#Crops). Secondly its bollocks to claim that water is only a limiting factor for dryland farming, we are lossing irrigation capacity for lack of river inflows.

    Irrigation also raises water tabels, causing salinity to become increase and play another limiting factor.

    South Asia is losing rice crops to flooding. Flooding in these population hotspots are increasing with AGW, but despite this [lack of water is still](http://www.aaas.org/international/ehn/waterpop/paki.htm) a limiting factor.

    The river flows in South Asia are predicted to descrease as warming rises in the [second half of this century](http://www.grida.no/publications/climate-in-peril/page/3545.aspx):

    >*Regionally, glaciers and snow fields are crucial sources of fresh water. They have undergone recent widespread and severe loss from melting, and this is projected to accelerate this century, reducing water availability and the potential for hydropower (often a feasible alternative to fossil fuel-based electricity generation which reduces CO2 emissions). Climate change is also expected to change the seasonal flows in regions fed by melt water from mountain ranges, like the Hindu Kush, the Himalayas and the inter-tropical Andes. More than a sixth of the worldâs population lives in these regions. Two thousand million people depend on the water provided by seven of the major rivers in Asia, all of them originating in the Himalayas.*

    Similar problems for [semi arid regions](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf) around the world (i.e. where water is already a limiting factor it will get worse).

    >*There is high confidence that by mid-century, annual river
    runoff and water availability are projected to increase at high latitudes (and in some tropical wet areas) and decrease in some dry regions in the mid-latitudes and tropics. There is also high confidence that many semi-arid areas (e.g. Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa and north-eastern Brazil) will suffer a decrease in water resources due to climate change.*

    #50
    Wheat is not number one it is number 5. Rice is the most important food and it is not a dryland product.

    So you hate the American Midwest, kent?

    "There is little energy excaping in the 15 micron window that CO2 absorbs energy."

    Can we have that again in *English* this time?

    "That energy is the energy that CO2 would use to warm the atmosphere."

    Yes, 350W/m^2 on average is going from the ground into the atmosphere and stopping there.

    And that is being trapped by the GHGs like CO2 and they warm the atmosphere.

    "If there is little energy excaping there can be little warming."

    When I lag the hot water tank, the water got hotter, not cooler. Do you not lag your hot water tank because you think it will cool it?

    "Yes I know about the other two main frequency windows that CO2 absorbs energy.They are over shadowed by H2O absorbtion."

    Except they aren't.

    Go over and look at the HITRANS output for the two molecules. The overlap is tiny.

    >*Wheat is not number one it is number 5. Rice is the most important food and it is not a dryland product.*

    Is that all you got?

    Rice is important, but [humans derive more](http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-31631-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html) protein from wheat than any other crop.

    >*Wheat is the most widely grown cereal grain, occupying 17 percent of the total cultivated land in the world. Wheat is the staple food for 35 percent of the worldâs population, and provides more calories and protein in the worldâs diet than any other crop.*

    BTW, own gaol Kent, considering the flooding destroying rice and the projected deficit of irrigation water over large sections of the world include [South Asia's population hotspots](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/bbc_apologizes_to_university_o…).

    Quite an old-school denier we have here in Kent. More CO2 is better? Wow! Almost makes me nostalgic for Arthur Robinson!

    Almost.

    If he didn't have a trademark sound of his own I would swear kent is TC in disguise...

    If global warming causes global cooling why don't we hear about what happens when we get cooling?
    The Southern Hemisphere is in it's 4th cool winter and it is it's worst of the 4. The Antarctic sea ice is well ahead of the long term average. La Nina is indicated, the sun is slugish, the PDO is in it's negative phase, etc, etc.
    Instead of focusing on CO2, we need to focus on adaption. No matter what climate change we end up with we will need to adapt, and adapting to cold will be a bit harder than to warm.

    kent "If global warming causes global cooling why don't we hear about what happens when we get cooling?"

    I hope to hear about cooling as soon as possible. This lot of data for winter temperatures in Australia shows no cool winters, in fact all of the last 4 winters on this display are above the long term average. If you look carefully you'll notice that only 1 out of the last eleven winters is below average.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=dtr&a…

    As for adaptation, tell it to the Chinese and the Pakistanis, They'll be thrilled to know you'd like to help.

    Kent says:

    The Southern Hemisphere is in it's 4th cool winter and it is it's worst of the 4.

    Erm, Kent, the middle of the southern winter in my corner of the world has been the warmest since 1880. My fruit trees are breaking bud a month earlier than they did last year, and some even more than a month earlier, and I rather suspect that the fruitset for some varieties will be almost non-existent because of the reduction in the number of chilling hours that these varieties require. Bird species that usually migrate north for winter have been resident throughout the season, and other migrants have arrived back weeks earlier than they usually show up.

    On a personal note, I have been wearing just t-shirts throughout winter, with a long-sleeved shirt on about 5 occasions, where in the past I would start with a t-shirt, then a long-sleeved shirt, a woolen jumper, and often a jacket when outside, from May onward.

    And there's nothing between me and Antarctica but a lot of water.

    Where's this cooling of which you speak?

    By Bernard J. (not verified) on 13 Aug 2010 #permalink

    Kent,

    Have you read what Ken has to say ?

    'In a commendable effort to improve the state of the data, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has created the Australian High-Quality Climate Site Network. However, the effect of doing so has been to introduce into the temperature record a warming bias of over 40%. And their climate analyses on which this is based appear to increase this even further to around 66%.'

    more about this here:
    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/

    Goodo.

    I'm so pleased to know that people in Adelaide and Melbourne die during record-breaking heatwaves by mistake rather than because it's getting hotter. Perhaps the Red Cross can get volunteers onto more relevant tasks rather than phoning elderly people to check on their health because it's dangerously hot. It's all a big mistake. Best of all we can blame a government agency for it.

    Double win!

    >*The Southern Hemisphere is in it's 4th cool winter and it is it's worst of the 4.*

    What do you mean by "cool winter"? Put [some numbers](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vsh/plot/hadcrut3vsh/mean:132/…) on it Kent

    And why would a regional cooling spell (if it exists) disprove a global sustained trend?

    Why are we in the warmest 12 month sequence on record, during a solar minimum?

    Errr Kent,

    According to NASA's temperature records, the southern hemisphere set a high temperature record during 2009. We are talking the warmest year ever (in the modern record), in the southern hemisphere. This data was supported by independent NOAA data.

    How on earth do you get from "warmest year ever in the southern hemisphere", backed by other data sources, to your implication of southern hemisphere cooling?

    I don't know where you get your info from, or how you do your own little personal interpretation of it, but it might be worthwhile doing a little background checking.

    Why on earth would drought affected crow-eaters not understand El Ninos?

    There may only be Kangaroo Island between me and the Antarctic but I can assure you that the dead and dying trees of the city as well as the parched southern Flinders and the Riverland (I only mention places where I've spent time in the last few years) are well acquainted with heat and drought. And our famous Goyder line (the reliable 10inch rainfall line) may move south as far as Clare by 2070.

    So not just wheat and sheep but wine-growing look to be in trouble. The current fuss about orchards and vineyards in the Riverland may well be the last gasp for cultivated crops along the river. A fast step towards olives and pistachios and pomegranates might be a good move for some.

    Kent: "Oi! I'm a Country Member!"
    us: "Yep, we remember."
    ...and Spotty's support confirms it.
    Slainte.

    Well, Chris, it's like this: Winters are cool, and there have been four of them in the Southern Hemisphere.

    And he never said anything about what "worst" means.

    After all, the truth is devastating to his case... and that's bad, right?

    No sign of the "worst" cool winter here (north).

    We had our warmest July ever, which contained the warmest July night ever.

    sunspot:

    astounding temperature frawd with increases averaging 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit

    It's obvious it's a fraud rather than an error because hardly anyone would realize that 10 degrees Fahrenheit increase in the Great Lakes in a short time is completely implausible. Yeah, sure.

    You're a moron sunspot.

    By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 14 Aug 2010 #permalink

    Shorter sunspot and kent:

    The Earth's cooling! Global temperature records show that the Earth's warming, but I say that all the temperature records were doctored, therefore I just pull some numbers out of my butt and say it's cooling!

    Therefore Climategate. Or something.

    #67
    Chris o'Neil, If you called me a liar to my face you would end up in the hospital. Five years hand to hand. Mind your manners.
    The average temp in the USA is based on the temperature of Airports which are paved with thousands of square meters of asphalt, which in full sun can get up to 150 degrees F. If you think this give us an accurate temp you are missing something.

    Kent, Chris has show your are an idiot, a liar or both.

    You don't back your claims, and when shown to be false you just move onto another baseless claim.

    Regarding your threats of violence, resorts to threats show the empty nature of your argument.

    BTW in my experience 100% little boys who brag about their fighting abilities are the wimps. I pick you as one.

    kent:

    If you called me a liar to my face you would end up in the hospital.

    So you're not only a pathetic, shameless liar, you are a violent, shameless, pathetic liar.

    The average temp in the USA

    I thought you were talking about the southern Hemisphere when you said:

    The Southern Hemisphere is in it's 4th cool winter and it is it's worst of the 4.

    Why do you suddenly start talking about the USA in response to a point about the Southern Hemisphere?

    By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 14 Aug 2010 #permalink

    Coming from the driest state in the driest inhabited continent in the world, my main interest (oh, OK, obsession) is with rainfall. Unfortunately, we're only 50/50 to do better than average this spring. A very poor La Nina from where I sit.

    (Of course this is mainly because my over-optimistic Pollyanna mindset clicked into oh, goody mode when I heard there was a La Nina on the way.)

    http://www.bom.gov.au/watl/rainfall/exceedance.shtml?dataview=median&ex…

    > The average temp in the USA is based on the temperature of Airports which are paved with thousands of square meters of asphalt...

    ...because satellites ignore the rest of the earth's surface and measure only airports.

    And because the entire Southern Hemisphere consists of the USA, and nothing else.

    And because Watts' own weather station siting data did not show that the sites that were considered "good" by his standards had a slightly larger warming *trend* than the rest.

    And because thousands upon thousands of biological indicators are not showing the responses expected from warming trends.

    ...and so on.

    Maybe you need to threaten to use your brain rather than your hands in this forum...

    By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Aug 2010 #permalink

    Kent, if all the emitted CO2 gets "eaten" by plants, why is the CO2 in the atmosphere increasing year-on-year? Where is all this stupendous vegetation your yarn promises us?

    @62 sunspot (August 14, 2010 3:42 AM):

    It would be hard for a crow eater to understand what an el nino is

    So by that yardstick, the 2008-2009 la Nina that never affected South Australia never caused the summer 2008-2009 heatwave in SE Australia which didn't contribute to the 2009 bushfires that never occurred in SA and Victoria.

    Correct?

    Better trolls please...

    Kent.

    Are you not a self-professes Christian? How does your threat of violence mesh with the biblical admonition to turn the other cheek?

    And how do you know that Chris O'Neill is not a better fighter than you?

    And how do violence and standover tactics change the irrefutable fact that what you spout about climate change is incorrect?

    If you are not a blustering, violent liar, then you are a blustering, violent ignorant.

    Take your pick.

    Now, can we return to the science...? If you have a case to make, supply us with credible evidence. Up until now everything that you have said and referred to is simply nonsense that falls down at the first scutineering hurdle.

    By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Aug 2010 #permalink

    sunspoy:

    Tough times ahead for the warm fable.

    Trust a moron to say that just because it will be La Nina conditions. Obviously you haven't noticed but La Nina years recently are warmer than El Nino years used to be until 20 years ago.

    By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 14 Aug 2010 #permalink

    sunspot:

    chrisse, it's not HOT !!!!

    Stupid moron. Brings a weather report to a climate argument.

    By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 14 Aug 2010 #permalink

    > Stupid moron. Brings a weather report to a climate argument.

    I generally don't bother with sunspot's disguised links - precisely because your comment describes the strong majority of them.

    By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Aug 2010 #permalink

    the topic at hand is La Nina & El Nino
    so you both think these are ?????????

    i thought you both would know the difference between climate and weather by now

    "Chris o'Neil, If you called me a liar to my face you would end up in the hospital"

    Pop your address up here and I'll pop over and call you a liar to your face.

    (anyone want to bet that kent here will bring his pistol to equalise the fight..?)

    could be interestin'

    kents a hand to hand exspert, where as WOW is a hand to prick exspert

    whole lotta floggin goin on here

    sunspot:

    the topic at hand is La Nina & El Nino so you both think these are ?????????

    And La Ninas are warmer than El Ninos used to be because of the warming .... climate.

    Stupid moron.

    By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 15 Aug 2010 #permalink

    Well, once again spotty spews any old thing Watts posts like giving a vindaloo to a dysentery victim, while pegging on some nonsensical non sequitur of his own devising.

    Would you care to bet on the chances of those same old tired regurgitated 'arguments' surviving peer review by anyone who understands what they're on about, spotty?

    Peer adulation and spamming by Watts doesn't count.

    I live in British Columbia Canada WOW. Where do you live?

    The temp north of 80 degrees is below the freezing point of fresh water. The earliest ever. It has been below normal for over two months. The climate experts said it was up to 4 degrees warmer than normal but it turns out is was below normal. Whats up with than girls?

    Yet another weather forecast

    By: The Canadian Press

    Date: Saturday Aug. 14, 2010 1:48 PM PT

    One of the driest summers on record is parching southern and central British Columbia and the Forest Service is bracing for another round of wildfires.

    After a brief respite of cool, wet weather, a heat wave is settling over much of the province with record temperatures expected into next week.

    Despite that, just one new wildfire had been spotted by Saturday morning and forestry officials say the 10 hectare fire is burning in slash on Vancouver Island, 28 kilometres southeast of Port Renfrew.

    It is not threatening any homes but smoke may be visible around Jordan River about 70 kilometres northwest of Victoria.

    The Forest Service reports 97 active fires across B.C., including a series of several huge blazes west and north of Williams Lake.

    Fire danger in all but the extreme southeastern corner of the province is rated at high to extreme with a campfire ban for all regions not expected to lifted for several weeks.

    And Kate's 7-day forecast says warm and sunny

    According to the [weather bureau](http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/bc-14_metric_e.html) Dease Lake is 14C and sunny and Fort Nelson at 17C and cloudy.

    Whitehorse in Yukon, and further north than anywhere in B.C., was 18C at 10.100a.m this morning forecast to rise to a balmy [30c](http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/yt-16_metric_e.html).

    Anyone have the suspicion that 'kent' is a spambot in some $5 an hour cubicle in Texas?

    "I live in British Columbia Canada WOW."

    You'll have to narrow it down.

    I can't come and say to your face you're a liar with just that, kent.

    Kent/Nahle/Bob The Cat has been banned for sockpuppetry. Please, no further responses to his nonsense.

    By Tim Lambert (not verified) on 15 Aug 2010 #permalink

    "kents a hand to hand exspert"

    How would you know, spotty dog? Sharing a bunk with him?

    Does that mean spot made his factoid up?!?!

    Say it's not so!

    101 Tim,

    This Kent does not read like the other Kent/Nasif. Are they the same IP?

    By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 Aug 2010 #permalink