At Wikipedia, one man engineers the debate on global warming, and shapes it to his views:
Next to Al Gore, William Connolley may be the world's most influential person in the global warming debate. He has a PhD in mathematics and worked as a climate modeller, but those accomplishments don't explain his influence -- PhDs are not uncommon and, in any case, he comes from the mid-level ranks in the British Antarctic Survey, the agency for which he worked until recently.
He was the Parish Councillor for the village of Coton in the U.K., his Web site tells us, and a school governor there, too, but neither of those accomplishments are a claim to fame in the wider world. Neither are his five failed attempts to attain public office as a local candidate for South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridgeshire County Council as a representative for the Green Party...
Read more here: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=490337
------------
The Opinionator, At Wikipedia, one man engineers the debate on global warming, and shapes it to his views.
by Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, Published: Saturday, May 03, 2008
Very good article! Thank you, master!
"How do you know that they don't?"
Dumb response. I didn't say they did or didn't. I questioned the source of Alarmists assertion: "Well it did have errors and still does !"
Gavin,
No, no, I meant noise to signal ratios. I had your utterly insightful and truly helpful contributions to this website in mind. Pure gold rolled you are.
And as I post this comment from a rather remote off grid location it is through a satellite communication system that it reaches the WWW. So while AUSAT may be history, satellite-based communication is the only way my mates and me ever connect to anything.
Just what do you do with the blunt end of your whip, again?
May I make a suggestion?
Sorry I asked.
"How do you know that the satellites still have errors?"
How do you know that they don't?
suckers hey
Tilo likewise knows nothing about communications
Like sitting on the wrong satellite trend for years and attempt no calibration rectification - yea sure.
Isn't it strange that if you overlay all the surface time series they basically tell the same trend story. So how has Watts ranting changed our overall interpretation?
Of course there is bias at Wiki - there is everywhere. What do you suggest we do - outlaw human nature.
"Wes mate you’re trying to upset someone who’s actually worked with the blunt end of the whip."
Did you do an S&M show in Sidney, Gavin?
"so doing nothing is simply a vote for more of the same. "
You mean more prosperity and more longevity? Yes, I will vote for more of that kind of "same".
By the way, are you impressed with this statement?
"During the 20th century, changes in the intensity of the subtropical ridge have largely
corresponded with changes in global temperature. This correspondence means that
there is a high likelihood that the current rainfall deficit is linked to current global
warming, through the intensification of the subtropical ridge."
It can be applied to just about anything. Phenomena XYZ has been observed in the 20th century and therefore corresponds with current global warming. This, to the truely moronic, serves as irrefutable evidence that it is caused by .8C of temperature difference. Droughts have always happened at one place or another. On the one hand we are told by the AGW nuts that the mechanism for CO2 forcing feedback is more moisture in the air. On the other they are claiming more drought. May I have that cake and eat it as well please?
"Well it did have errors and still does !"
So did the surface records and they still do. Watts has documented bunches of them. How do you know that the satellites still have errors?
In any case, it's not about errors. So your response is simply an attempt to bury your head in the sand and ignore the bias at wiki. It's about how errors are reported and repeated that is at issue on there. That is clear in my post. So why do you bring back such a lame response.
When Wes ploughed in with,” Isn’t it interesting that we now have, due to the Internet and satellite driven global communication systems, more access to information than ever before, but the noise to signal ratio and propaganda to rational thought signal have both gone through the roof?” etc. somebody should have noted a few wild guesses like “satellite driven global communication systems”. AUSAT downunder is truly history now and btw its signal to noise ratio not “the noise to signal ratio”.
Wes mate you’re trying to upset someone who’s actually worked with the blunt end of the whip.