Godfrey Bloom

I trust these comments will appear on your website.

Anyone blogging this website should also refer to Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA GISS.
Schmidt's comments seriously contradict Godfrey Bloom's assertions.
The essense here is GB's opinions vs overwhelming scientic evidence.

Dated Sat. 13th March, 2010

Mr Harrison, please fee free to provide some links to Gavin Schmidt, where he "seriously contradicts" my "assertions".

My "assertions" are that the GISS temperature record is seriously contradicted by THREE (count them) other temperature series, and people use it (instead of the others) to emphasise the worst possible scenario.

I am not an expert however globalwarming due to CO2 could be happening in addition to the natural changes which occur on planet earth. I remember reading that following 9/11 the air temperature over the USA reduced following the no fly restrictions. In my opinion the main problem is population increase and whilst this may not be a PC comment I find it strange that it is hardly mentioned.

Re above - how about www.giss.nasa.gov ..et al.

In addition, UAH is the ONLY data base to have widely divergent trends.

UAH was the first data centre to use Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), ie (early) satellites.

Satellites are not homogeneous -ie they have different intruments, tend to fade and drift from orbit. There is little over-lap and calibration of data is difficult.

RSS does not measure temps - they measure wave-length radiance and have to be mathamatically converted ...results depend on what variables are imput.

You contradict youself - you quote RSS data and UAH data as if they are different fundamental sources. Remote Sensing System is essentially satellites (with some balloons) and UAH uses RSS for collecting data.

Other data centres are using RSS with reservations (as indicated above).

GISS at NASA consolidates temp data from a multitude of data centres and offers an an average.

Subsequently, since you have offered UAH as an example, in the question of fairness, why haven't you shown other data analysis which are above GISS's mean?

Nevertheless, all data trends display a rising global temperature.

Lastly, you quote a screen-full of Climate Change sceptics.....how many of these are fully-fledged and qualified climatologists??....like, at the last count, over 10,000 qualified climatologists who support the concept that Climate Change is man-made?

Ken. Thanks for your comment.

Unfortunately, I can't quite follow what it is that you're objecting to. Could you please post again, making it clear i) what it is I've actually said, ii) what it is you think I've said (i.e. your interpretation), and iii) what is wrong with what I've said, including iv) some links to further information, if possible.

For instance, I have no idea who the "screen-full of Climate Change sceptics" I've quoted are. I don't think I've quoted anybody.

Re my last blog:
UKIP's and your denial focus is presently with Prof Ian Plimer.

What qualifications does he have?

My understanding is that he is qualified in geology and has a chair in Mining Engineering.

What scientific facilities does he have to research climatology in his mining lab? And are his research assistants suitably qualified?

In the case of the Manhatten Conference on Climate Change in 2008 and a conference that UKIP repeatedly keeps referring.....some of the 'experts' on climate change had professorships in economics.

How does UKIP equate such an unrelated discipline being employed in a proper scientific debate on climate change?

With regard to impartiality, did any of the speakers have direct/indirect association with oil, car conglomerates etc.
If so, how many?

In addition, was the Conference an open discussion, or were the speakers especially selected as sceptics?

How many climatologist who support the notion that climate change is man-made, spoke at the Conference?

Your comments would be most welcome.

Ken, I see that you want to talk about something else, not the subject of the blog post above. I take it that you're unable to expand on your criticism.

If you want to exclude Plimer and economists from the climate debate for not being suitably qualified, you'd have to exclude the same people with similar qualifications from the other side. It would mean that the IPCC consisted of a few hundred people, at most, and there would likely have been only a few hundred more at the vast COP15 conference.

And, so on to the question of impartiality. Do we know how many climate scientists really are impartial? How many of them receive research grants, hmm? How many of them do consulting work for eco firms, etc?

It's about time you stopped the political speak and answered a few home truths.

About ten days ago I down-loaded your blog page containing Climate Change sceptics..which included Prof Ian Plimer and other individuals and institutions.

Are you know saying that that this page was not yours? So where did it come from?

For example, can you please inform me when pro man-made Climate Change researchers have used economists in their argument? The Manhatten Conference did and the UKIP constantly refers to this conference as their 'evidence'.

Can I enquired the source of the graphs used on this page?
They very clearly appear to be skewed in favour of the sceptics' debate on which your base your argument.

In addition, you are blatantly avoiding answering my questions.

As for Prof Ian Plimer - UKIP and yourself are parading him as an Climate Change 'expert'.

In contrast, any sensible political body or organisation is using data and information on Climate Change supplied by reliable research centres.
You are using the the disagreements between these centres and individual climatologists, again, as a base for so-called 'evidence' that Climate Change is natural.

The whole essence of scientific debate is that others properly and scientifically challenge findings and oucomes.
Your challenge is based upon opinions.

Indeed, UKIP's approach and methodology to Climate Change is deplorable. It relies on gathering so-called 'evidence' from sceptics and perpettuating the same inherently biased 'evidence' in the party's political stance.

Of course, researhes get funded...so what? Are you suggesting that the 10 thousand odd climate researchers have a vested interested in outcomes and will skew their findings?

How many of the comparative handful of sceptics have an association with industrial conglomerates? Even Prof Ian Plimer appears to like courting with contrversy in his publications.

As you clearly state in the blog....some people only want to give you a story one way!!

Finally, I am correct in assuming that I am receiving replies from Godfrey Bloom and not his research assistant?

I am sorry, Ken, if I appear to be not answering your questions. The fact of the matter is that they simply are not expressed very clearly in terms of the use of language, nor is it clear what you're actually referring to at any moment.

Part of the problem is that you began by criticising the graphs. Now this is fair enough, but then you decided instead to discuss the matter of Prof. Plimer's qualifications, UKIP policy, and things that were said at certain conferences. If this conversation had a chair, I imagine that he'd have asked you to limit yourself to just one or two relevant points at a time.

If you want to discuss the graphs, let's do that first, then let's discuss the other matters.

The sources of the graphs are as each of the graphs states - NASA GISS, HAD CRU, UAH, and RSS, obtained through the excellent woodfortrees.org website.

Thank you.
But with the very little information you have given me, the more fabulous your belief becomes.
For example, you indicate that the source of the graphs is: woodfortree.org
This site has been developed by a Paul Clark, a software developer who, on his own admission, is 'not a academic researcher'.
Surely, his other comments of, 'playing with graphs', 'guess' and my 'thoughts' should have sent alarm bells as these graphs cannot be relied upon as scientifically sound, especially when he mentions a third-party wanting to add other things to the graphs. For a start, they are not original; he has used references of various dates and of different origin and has seemingly doctored them at the whim of a third party!!!!
We are too early for an April Fool, so are you really blogging these graphs as evidence to support your beliefs?

Ken,

The graphs are not generated by woodfortrees, though that is one function that the site offers. It also generates tables for data.

If you don't trust software developers to safely transmit data, then there will not be a single data resource on the internet that will satisfy you.

The reason for using woodfortrees is that all the main data sources are held in the same place, and easily queried.

If you have a good reason for rejecting the output of that site, please let us hear it. I have no reason to think that the site has altered the data from the original, publicly-available datasets.

...so why did the colonel ignore the advice of trained scouts that his battalion would be ambushed in the wadi when they moved out of camp by tribesmen laying in wait and preferred to listen to the Naafi manager who claimed it was all nonsense as his sticky buns were still being delivered by the very friendly baker who was disppointed to learn that tomorrow's order was cancelled because the troops were on exercise.

Confusing.....can you therefore explain why similar graphs on other web-sites have 'Woodfortree.org' printed on their bottom-left corner in the form of a copyright?

Ken, images downloaded from the woodfortrees.org on-line graphing tool carry the label.

My images in this blog post were not made by woodfortrees.org, hence they do not carry the label.

With respect, I think you may well be clutching at straws.

Re above....You told me that Woodfortrees was the source of graphs.

I ask again, what is the source of the graphs?
Surely you don't make assumptions on information that you don't know the origin of!

Secondly - have been looking at your Sceptic List on you site that you seem to have forgotten about.

For interest: RICHARD LIDZEN - famous for saying that there is no consensus about climate change - received 2500 dollars a day from oil and coal interests.

When did Dr DREW SHINDELL from NASA's Goddard Inst. become a global warming sceptic? He claims that ozone and gasses from aerosols should be taken more seriously....that does not make him a sceptic!

Dr DON PARKER is a retired Human Ecologist - (ie Human Distribution Patterns) - is not a climatologist.
His letter was described as 'weak and poorly thought out' by his peers.

Shall I go on?

Perhaps you need to verify the source of this list, too.

Ken, you are confusing yourself.

Graphs are images. Data is numbers.

The source of the data is as the graphs state - UAH, RSS, GISS, HADCRU. The graphs are not from the woodfortrees.org site.

You are trying to make something out of nothing.

I think we've reached the end of this conversation.

I don't mention a list anywhere in the conversation above. It looks as though you're changing the subject again. Please, try to keep on topic.

Oh dear, dear....

You seem to have difficulty understanding simple English.
Correction ....I did not ask for the source of the data, I ask for the source of the graphs.

Please don't try to teach your grandmother, Jonathan, to suck eggs.

GISS el al did not supply these graphs. The graphs have been doctored.

Again, simple English...I am keeping to the topic...part of which is 'Climate Denial' - if this is not part of the topic, then why have you included, 'YouTube' in this very blog?

You are certainly incredulous - so you haven't denied that the sceptic list exists! Refer to your own comment, 9.56 on 17/3 and the list which is contained in this blog and to which you attached your name.

Amazing!!!!!

Ken, you were confused about woodfortrees.org either being the source for the data, or the source of the images.

As I said, the source of the data is as the graphs state - GISS, HADCRU, UAH, and RSS - which were obtained from woodfortrees.org

This conversation is not progressing, mostly because you seem to have trouble keeping your criticism focussed, and expressing your complaint.

You seem to be implying that something untoward has taken place. The graphs have not been "doctored". The graphs were produced from the data in Excel. If the data has been processed it is clearly mentioned in the blog post.

If you can't make a sensible criticism, I shall not be replying. I have created the blog so that people can take issue and discuss things with me, but this doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, and seems to be about many things at one time. Please keep focussed, and be clear about what you are objecting to.