tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post112077381499340189..comments2024-03-27T23:59:49.801+00:00Comments on Stoat: House of Lords subverted by skeptics...William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1120982650512548012005-07-10T08:04:00.000+00:002005-07-10T08:04:00.000+00:00It's hard to interpret their use of the word "hypo...It's hard to interpret their use of the word "hypothesis" as anything other than a calculated insult.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1120906425507723662005-07-09T10:53:00.000+00:002005-07-09T10:53:00.000+00:00The point you are missing is that satellite-based ...The point you are missing is that <I>satellite-based measurements, the latter showing some cooling</I> is simply *wrong*. The records just don't show this. Its drivel. If you doubt that, then simply look at the records: e.g. <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements" REL="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements</A> has a nice pic, which I drew, comparing the sfc and MSU records. Can you see the divergence? Can you see the cooling trend?William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1120884019778059912005-07-09T04:40:00.000+00:002005-07-09T04:40:00.000+00:00You seem very quick to pull the trigger on a repor...You seem very quick to pull the trigger on a report with selective quotation. The most glaring example is your quote of the section that states "apparent divergences between land-based temperature records and satellite-based measurements, the latter showing some cooling rather than warming in recent years;" without noticing the start of that paragraph which states "...we heard doubts expressed about other features of the accepted science. These include:" and after the list which you lifted the snippet from they say: "We do not propose to evaluate these doubts, nor are we qualified to do so. We are also aware that climate scientists who adhere to the human-induced warming hypothesis have responses to most of these sources of doubt."<BR/><BR/>Is it that even reporting on doubts that have been expressed is not allowed and a sign of thoughtcrime? Perhaps you should read the report again and be clear where they are expressing their own views and where they are reporting on views expressed to them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1120810886779420682005-07-08T08:21:00.000+00:002005-07-08T08:21:00.000+00:00Well, I see from a cruise around the Lords site th...Well, I see from a cruise around the Lords site that two other committees -- the Science & Technology Committee and the EU Environment & Agriculture Subcommittee -- are pushing the government hard toward more action on climate change. I couldn't discern any concern on their parts as to the differing views of the Economics Committee. Also, the time that the Economics Committee allowed between their Call for Evidence and the just-issued report was only six months, which from what I can tell makes it a bit of a hurry-up hatchet job. The typical time for such things seems to be more like a year. The Economics Committee's immediate prior report was allowed 9-1/2 months. Finally, I notice that the Science and Technology Committee will issue its report on energy efficiency later this month following a gestation period of a full year. Presumably they could have sped it up for the G8 summit, but apparently chose not to do so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com