Further to Robin’s post about Richard Black’s “nothing much to see here, move along now” article about the Climategate inquiries – I was amused to see that the BBC chose to highlight the significance of CRU data on climate models with a ludicrous alarmist image which appears to show bubbling oceans of lava.
The picture properties says “Model visualisation of ocean currents”
So it is nothing to do with “climate models”. If the BBC cannot get a picture to represent their caption – what does that say for the rest of the “article”?
“Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.”
http://billpeddie.wordpress.com/guest-articles/a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action-by-professor-richard-lindzen/
Actually the graphic is a manipulated graphic of sea surface temperatures that has had the real colour representation removed and replaced with all red, the very dakest is actually cooler water.
Pathetic tricks for a pathetic BBC desperate tohide the truth.
This is classic BBC science. Garbage graphics or comment that means absolutely nothing. We’ll see it next week on Horizon. I despair, I really do – this kind of explanation does incredible amounts of damage to science and engineering
This is not science its BBC science.
“The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science.”
-Julian Schwinger, physicist
Good grief, what has happened to New Zealand ?
Rising lava levels Grant. I bet warmists in New Zealand never saw that coming.
“Good grief, what has happened to New Zealand?”
The deniers upset the High Priests and Gaia was vengeful.
Too late for them now, Craig.
So we can stop pretending to care about the Maldives now that it’s disappeared under a literal ocean of lava?
I think I’d prefer to look at the images in Joe Bastardi’s latest video, which tends to give a rather more accurate picture of what to expect in the ensuing years. What a great man he is, doesn’t thrust dogma down your throat, is up front when he’s wrong (which isn’t often), has a grasp on what’s going on and why, explains it well, and directs the viewers to other sites to see for themselves the message he is putting across, rather than unquestioningly take for gospel all that he says. first class meteorologist, with the necessary humility to go with it.
As he says, global temperatures are plummeting.
Funny that the BBC never mention him…
http://www.accuweather.com/video.asp?channel=vbbastaj
Well, I guess the BBC is right…CRU’s modified data has been instrumental in validating climate models! After all, they couldnt use REAL weather data could they…so CRU came to the party and saved the climate models!
Mailman
That just about sums up the vacuousness of the anti-science brigade; “see this picture – it looks a bit like lava – must be rubbish”.
Welcome back , Dez, we missed you !
I would be a little careful when you comment on science matters on this website as some of us, including me, have a background in science, unlike most Beeboids who shoot their mouths off on these matters.
But, if you are able to debate the science, please fire away.
Well yes, there is a particular “consensus” on this blog that apparently no one is allowed to disagree with! How strange 😉
Dez,
Who says that no-one “is allowed to disagree” ? As I say, please feel free to debate the scientific evidence here.
“Well yes, there is a particular “consensus” on this blog that apparently no one is allowed to disagree with!”
“How strange “
Yep we know you are but we will let it slide !so you pop in tell us we all vacuous and anti this and that and that we wont let you disagree with us ? really have you been banned or argued with on here ? given that the only calls for “no debate” are from your side you are really scraping the barrel on this on Dezmond !
Matthew,
If only the BBC and its website welcomed debate to the same extent that this one does.
Maybe, David Vance can tell us the last time he removed a post from here.
The posts are instant and not pre-moderated.
What a contrast with the self-serving censorship at the BBC !
Got a problem with the consensus Dez? Then get those fingers dancing and tell us why!
The graph is a disgrace and a cynical deception and a desperate trick to hide ocean cooling, its petty but is you diagree then tell us why you think the graph is valid, simples innit Dez?
I would be interested in your take of the issue 😉 .
Dez.
John Horne Tooke above is exactly correct.
Without too much trouble I have found the original of this image used to illustrate Black’s article. Here it is (bottom left).
It is a “computer visualisation of ocean current speeds at 15 metres depth”.
It appears in Black’s article titled “CRU data has been crucial in designing and validating computer models of the climate system”. And the connection is?
It is a fraudulent attempt to influence the reader.
So Dez the picture is rubbish. Anti-science brigade? Vacuousness(?)!
Take a look at yourself. Prat.
I would have thought that ocean currents played quite a significant role in modelling the climate system? Do you disagree?
Weak, Dez. Weak.
Yes yes yes, thermodynamics at work it all its majesty BUT why hide the real colour coding of the graph to hide the cooling then Dez?
The BBC have gotta be a bit desperate to fiddle with th colour just to hide a cooling they promised was not happening.
David Jones,
Ah ” computer visualisation ” , so it must be accurate 😉
Looks like New Zealand and part of Western Europe have been swamped, but maybe I am mis-interpreting it.
Yes ditto, I am actually a scientist and my comment above is essentially saying that the BBC devalues science and engineering with stupid diagrams end explanation like this picture. The BBC have no idea what science is – ithey have played a very large part in transforming it into a political tool.
Actually the image is very cunning, the darkest red shows colder water!
If a real spectrum of colour was shown from red for warmer and blue for colder then it would clearly show ocean COOLING.
Thats why the map has been altered in this way, a very crafty trick eh? They cannot show cooling because they have promised us that the oceans are warming up NOT cooling down, the Argo bouys launched to great fanfare are now invisible and forgotten.
The BBC filth have become so desperate to hide the truth from us now that they have to re colour a map? They have lost, they know they have lost yet thir contempt for the truth is astonishing to behold, they are reduced to pathetic tricks.
Cassie,
Beeboids will pervert anything, including science, to suit their twisted, narrow-minded, political agenda. But, you already know that !
No point in discussing climate change with them. Not only can they not understand the science, but their minds are terminally closed so no facts to the contrary will change them.
“the darkest red shows colder water!”
In a spectrum of red to yellow; that’s exactly what I would expect.
“If a real spectrum of colour was shown from red for warmer and blue for colder then it would clearly show ocean COOLING.”
Er huh, so if it was shown beige for warmer and green for colder it would clearly show what? The need for a better qualified Graphic Designer? More shelf space in the average home?
What are you on dezzie ? the graphic is basic because it need to be understood by us foolish vacuous heretics and as red denotes danger then they fill it up with red and get the desired basic human responses you want of ‘fear ‘ ‘anxiety’ ‘worry’ and as a bonus it’s great for kids ! if you don’t think that’s how kind of PR rubbish works then why is there a ‘consensus ‘ of companies spending billions on subliminal advertising ?
Red to blue is the normal graphic for heat distribution and temperature range so if as you say that don’t mean owt then bloody plumbers can get very creative now can’t they ?
Yep, I thought science convention was that blue is cold, red is hot. Any departure from that and I smell a rat !
No no no no Dez! The graph is a readily available graphic showing SSTs but with the usual colour scheme changed to hide cooling, admit it please.
Red ALWAYS appears to represent warmer and blue with white ALWAYS representing cooler with white as neutral, no ifs and no buts it is how the BBC have always presented their graphs UNTIL NOW.
Ooops that should read blue cooler and white neutral and red warmer.
Sorry!
So… the BBC decide to ‘enhance the narrative’ with a tweak or two in the edit suite, and get nailed.
Meanwhile…
Dez
I would have thought..
Usually things simply don’t end well from this quarter, but this time immediately the problem becomes obvious.
Meanwhile, back at the science representing, has this latest ‘creation’ appeared anywhere that is configured (if possibly doesn’t allow) for critique? I’d check his blog, but it gets closed these days before it opens usually, and if a few comments do make it they get referred if not sucking up, so it’s a waste of space.
if so, I’d love to hear the latest BBC weasel on this one.
As a kid I recall being told that traffic lights in Red China had red for ‘go’ as that was positive. Could catch on again if the mindset is open to that logic, one supposes.
But Dez – the picture does not match the caption. The map was chosen for its misleading impact. Ocean currents do indeed affect climate but it has absolutley nothing to do with the caption below the picture.
As for ocean cooling:
“”In 2005, NASA boss James Hansen stated in an article in the journal ‘Science’ that confirmation of the planetary energy imbalance can be obtained by measuring the heat content of the oceans which are the principal reservoir for excess energy.
A problem for the AGW hypothesis now, is that the oceans have been cooling. Indeed there is no known mechanism to account for what some describe as vast amounts of missing heat, suggesting that contrary to the AGW hypothesis, heat is not accumulating in the climate system and there is no longer any radiative imbalance from all the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.”
http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/ocean-cooling-falsifies-global-warming-hypothesis/
Oh and by the way I am a scientist, I have an MSc.
Dezzie,
Good to see you back. You were missed from the comments on the Peter Sissons revelations. You could still find them and add the official BBC rebuttal if you would be so kind. We really do want to know how the BBC mind responds to criticism from one who actually knows the truth having worked there for 20 years and watched it change, so please go ahead.
As far as your arguments on here go, I would suggest that you haven’t actually made any real points yet. You should be able to do that if your views are so 100% correct, and there are plenty of comments you could lift from the BBC who “report” the subject exclusively your way.
Oh no, not another long absence from Dez ? Bring back Scottie, I say !