Arapiles says:
"So do you seriously think a credible "independent Inquiry" into the climategate affair should be chaired by a man who sits on Deutsche Banks climate advisory panel along with the head of the IPCC Arapiles? Please do reply."

Who would you have chosen?

Certainly not someone who is paid by an institution whose clients have a $60 billion invested interest in continuing the co2 climate alarmism. If you really can't see that, then bless your naievete. If you can see that, but are blustering around it anyway, then it speaks ill of your intellectual integrity.

I would have chosen someone with an interest in upholding the principles of the scientific method to whom money and position wasn't an issue.

Arapiles says:
Exactly how would Deutsche lose billions if it was decided that a group of climate scientists were telling lies?

Not just "a group of climate scientists" Arapiles. This particular group are central to the whole alarmist enterprise. But you knew that, you are just trying to deflect the gravity of the issue."

I'll repeat the question: EXACTLY how would Deutsche lose money?

And so once again attempt to deflect the primary issue.
I can't tell you EXACTLY how Deutsche would lose money, though it's fairly obvious a good deal of the $60billion Green portfolio would evaporate if the climate alarm was officially found to be the falsehood the majority of the public already know it is. And of course the E.U. would have a hard time justifying the use of public money in propping up of the price of co2 junk bonds, or 'carbon trading instruments' or whatever poncy name you want to give them.

Can you tell me EXACTLY what evidence supports the IPCC's assertion that they are 90% certain human emitted co2 is responsible for the majority of the temperature increase since 1975?

Edited by tallbloke on 10/20/2010 06:53:58 MDT.

Miguel says:
Hi Rog, I may have to take back even more words than I originally thought! I've been researching what the species is that you photographed, and there is a good chance it might be a genus I'd never heard of: bushcrickets... sort of a cross between crickets and grasshoppers and which appear to be quite common in the alpine regions of southern Europe. I haven't been able to find enough images to compare your photograph to so I can't positively identify it.

Hi Miguel,
to my untrained eye, there seems to be a resemblance to this cute critter:
http://newnaturalist.com/2009/04/17/saddle-backed-bush-cricket-ephippiger-ephippiger/

to my untrained eye, there seems to be a resemblance to this cute critter:
http://newnaturalist.com/2009/04/17/saddle-backed-bush-cricket-ephippiger-ephippiger/

Yup, that's it! I thought it might be Ephippiger ephippiger (Saddle Backed Bush Cricket) from several of the reports I read, but without images I wasn't sure. The image you have is of a mature individual. Interesting that the wings don't grow full-length down to the end of the body. This is a characteristic usually only of crickets and grasshoppers that live directly on the ground. Perhaps as an alpine species the Bushcricket does live on the ground and has no need to, or the conditions up there preclude the ability to, get about by flying? Its body certainly is hefty enough.

Here is a photo of a female with its ovipositor visible.

Exciting for me to learn about a new genus I hadn't known about! There is always something new to learn and know!

Edited by butuki on 10/20/2010 06:43:53 MDT.

Miguel says:
Interesting that the wings don't grow full-length down to the end of the body. This is a characteristic usually only of crickets and grasshoppers that live directly on the ground. Perhaps as an alpine species the Bushcricket does live on the ground and has no need to, or the conditions up there preclude the ability to, get about by flying? Its body certainly is hefty enough.

Here is a photo of a female with its ovipositor visible.

There was another type, smaller, that seemed to be in the majority up on the high mountain. The ones fleeing ahead of my trail shoes seemed to be using their wings as a sort of hover assist as they leaped along. I have a photo of one giving another a piggy back, I don't think they were mating, though as I said, I know very little about entomology. I can't get the photo off the camera here, so it'll have to wait for this evening.

Exciting for me to learn about a new genus I hadn't known about! There is always something new to learn and know!

Admirable attitude. Whenever I try to explain my discoveries to the Earth scientists, they give me that "My world view is sorted thanks, don't rock my boat" look.


Cheers

Edited by tallbloke on 10/20/2010 06:56:53 MDT.

I have a photo of one giving another a piggy back, I don't think they were mating,

If the one on top (it's usually grasshoppers that ride one another) was smaller, it was most likely a male. And they probably were mating. The females aren't too forgiving of the males, so the males have to do everything they can to stay with the females.

"The UK domestic energy bill is now about 15% higher because of this crap."

I have no doubt that energy prices are going up, but you can't blame it totally on global warming alarmism. Many of the alternative energy sources would be (and will be) taken up by many countries in the near future, for a variety of environmental and long term cost reasons IMHO. You can't burn coal and wood forever, they are both a dwindling and polluting way to get energy. Nuclear power has a lot of potential to keep long term costs down, but has a bad rap in many countries, and is financially not feasible in the shorter term. I think it takes something like 20-30 years from the time you decide to build a nuclear plant until it's producing energy, and all the cost has to be born up front. There is more hydro potential, but that can be pretty damaging to local environments, and is not always reliable. Hydro also has a long lag time and high up front costs. So in the mean time, many of these alternatives are here to stay, warming or cooling or no change to global temps. They just make good sense: they are sustainable, non-polluting and can be implemented quickly. No doubt we'll see a lot more energy harnessed from waves and tides and geothermal and all sorts of very clean and sustainable alternatives besides solar and wind. We should celebrate this, not bemoan a mild increase in energy prices.

Null hypothesis: Humans have not contributed to CO2 increases, and there is no global warming. These have not been *proven* to an acceptable level to convince most scientists who work in the field. If Rog or anyone else has evidence to support this hypothesis then you really, really need to make an effort to publish it in a relevant journal. Because good hypothesis or not, if you don't convince your colleagues, via publication and other means, your hypothesis will never be seriously considered.

I did not read Photovoltaic here as an alternative energy source.

--B.G.--

"I did not read Photovoltaic here as an alternative energy source."

That's because I am not an energy expert, so don't know all the possibilities. Isn't solar based on photo voltaic??

Then there's dynamos: All my torches are now dynamo and/or solar powered. I also have a dynamo to charge most other accessories (cell phone, iPOD, radio, rechargeable batteries, etc...) I just don't see the point in use of batteries when I can generate my own energy or borrow it from the sun...

Edited by retropump on 10/20/2010 14:29:34 MDT.

Solar has two categories. One is a solar water heater. The other is photovoltaic, which generates electricity. I use the latter.

There are lots of complaints about the hidden costs of manufacturing them. However, once you have them installed, they are nice.

--B.G.--

Lynn says:
Null hypothesis: Humans have not contributed to CO2 increases, and there is no global warming. These have not been *proven* to an acceptable level to convince most scientists who work in the field.

No Lynn, that is not the null hypothesis, that is a strawman you're attempting to set up.

The Null hypothesis is that what little warming there has been is a totally natural phenomenon which is unaffected by co2 levels. Different thing completely.

We all know humans have contributed to the rise in co2. What we don't know is whether that rise contributed to the modest rise in global temperature up to 2003, when the planet started cooling down again.

It is up to the proponents of the man emitted co2 global warming hypothesis to prove their case with suporting evidence and successful predictions. They have failed in this regard so far.

It is not up to me or other people sceptical of the scare story to prove anything, the null hypothesis is doing fine.

Stop trying to put the onus on us to prove a negative. That is not logical, scientific or reasonable.
It's like me saying:
"the moon is made of cheese, now it's up to you to prove me wrong and if you can't, then you have to pay me a cheese tax".
See what I mean?

Something that is worth pointing out is that the ocean heat content started falling in 2003, at the same time as the Sun dropped below it's long term average output, from which it hasn't yet got going again with solar cycle 24. The research I've done suggests to me that the sun has a lot more to do with the global temperature changes than has previously been recognised.

Edited by tallbloke on 10/20/2010 15:05:31 MDT.

Miguel says:
If the one on top (it's usually grasshoppers that ride one another) was smaller, it was most likely a male. And they probably were mating.

I bow to your greater knowledge. They are sat on the leg of my Paramo trousers for a good 5 minutes like this. Here's the image:

.

I don't see any wings on these ones though.

Edited by tallbloke on 10/20/2010 14:50:48 MDT.

"Null hypothesis:"

I prefer the numbskull hypothesis: The earth is warming because of a big, invisible candle in space directly underneath it.

I'm not sure who actually lit the candle. Might be aliens. Might not. That's for scientists to figure out.

"The Null hypothesis is that what little warming there has been is a totally natural phenomenon which is unaffected by co2 levels. Different thing completely."

OK, I was just trying to understand your null hypothesis. No matter how you word it, your null hypothesis is not supported by mainstream science, and you have the power to do something about it. Can you actually show that what little warming there has been is a totally natural phenomenum unaffected by CO2 levels? The obvious answer is "NO", not any more than other climate experts have absolutely shown otherwise. It is an unresolvable issue, and the best we can do (should do) is act responsibly towards sustainable and low impact living options that will just happen to also reduce CO2 emissions. Waiting for conclusive science before we act is silly...there will never be a conclusive way to measure the impacts we have on the climate, if any. Trying to do so is just an academic exercise IMHO.

Lynn says:
No matter how you word it, your null hypothesis is not supported by mainstream science

Well actually, it is, beciuse the co2 global warming proponents haven't provided any strong evidence to show us they are right, so the previously existing null hypothesis still holds sway. That is the scientific position.

The policy position is a different matter.

Now you can argue that we should adopt a "safety first" policy anyway, and that's fine, if you can get a democratic majority to go with you. What I'm arguing is that it's wrong to try to get the public to go in that direction by lying to them that the science confirms co2 is a problem, because it hasn't.

Douglas says:
The earth is warming because of a big, invisible candle in space directly underneath it.

It's them durn crickets rubbing their legs together, creating heat.

"Now you can argue that we should adopt a "safety first" policy anyway, and that's fine, if you can get a democratic majority to go with you. What I'm arguing is that it's wrong to try to get the public to go in that direction by lying to them that the science confirms co2 is a problem, because it hasn't."

Agreed. I wish politics would focus more on all the OTHER, undeniably good reasons we should change our ways, and quickly. However, if it gets the result in the end then it still a worthy endeavor. I don't think anyone is "lying" about the science of global warming, they really believe it and can find plenty of evidence to contradict your null hypothesis. However, your null hypothesis may not be accepted as the gold standard of climate research by most people in the field. I am sure there are all sorts of null (and a priori) hypotheses in the world of climate research, just as there are in all sorts of science fields.

Lynn says:
However, your null hypothesis may not be accepted as the gold standard of climate research by most people in the field.

It's not my null hypothesis, it's the null hypothesis. And it's not a matter of climatologists choosing whether or not they are going to accept it, just as they don't get to choose whether or not to accept the law of cause and effect.

Until they come up with persuasive evidence that their co2 caused warming hypothesis is correct, the null hypothesis stands, whether they like it or not, and whether they admit it or not.

Science is not a 'consensus' or a majority vote. If all the physicists in the world decided to adopt the view that effect precedes cause, would that make it true?

Edited by tallbloke on 10/20/2010 15:43:24 MDT.

"if it gets the result in the end then it still a worthy endeavor"

Translation: "the end justifies the means"



Often attributed to Machiavelli.

see also; ""I shall do a minor evil to achieve a greater good." or
"My aim for greater good makes all the evils I have done right."

Or, "don't think, just do as you are told"

this is a very dangerous path to head down when it comes to governments and public policy.

It works well for totalitarians of course and is a very popular argument strategy employed by the leftists worldwide to control people.

I'm sure you didn't mean to use it that way Lynn as you don't seem the dictator type, but think about it for a minute and I'm sure you will see the problems this sort of logic leads to.

The crux of the problem is that some people believe the "verdict is in" on global warming and they thus must force others to change their actions based on this judgment.

The problem is that the science is neither solid nor unanimous.

1. How much global warming and by who/what and to what degree is unproven.

2. What changes would have what effect is completely unknown and unproven

3. Worldwide enforcement is impossible. Full Stop. Impossible.

And lots of money and politics is at play from both sides

The only solution is to do what you think is right personally and what you are comfortable with. And let others do the same.

Change your lightbulbs if that works for you, plant trees, drive a big truck, whatever.

This has little to do with changing lightbulbs.

Planning at many stages can take place, and is.

Ski areas, military planners, water resource managers,
all are planning for potential consequences of climate
change. This shouldn't stop. Taxation etc. may be a
different issue. When Bangladesh or N'oleans floods, there should be a plan in place about what to do then and plans
of a preventative measure. Plant more mangroves, check
d i k e s (BPL's profanity checker at work here), etc.

CO2 has increased. No doubt. What will happen due to this
increase needs to be thought about.