Paul Hudon of BPSDB
- The BBC asks “What happened to global warming?” during the hottest decade in recorded history!
- What happened to global warming?
- The BBC should report climate change facts rather than political spin
- Hudson’s choice
says: “I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October.”
Oh really? before 24 of them were even written?
1255477545.txt / 13 Oct 2009, 1255496484.txt / 14 Oct 2009, 1255523796.txt / 14 Oct 2009, 1255530325.txt / 14 Oct 2009, 1255532032.txt / 14 Oct 2009, 1255538481.txt / 14 Oct 2009, 1255550975.txt / 14 Oct 2009, 1255553034.txt / 14 Oct 2009, 1255558867.txt / 14 Oct 2009, 1256214796.txt / 22 Oct 2009. 1256302524.txt / 23 Oct 2009, 1256353124.txt / 23 Oct 2009, 1256735067.txt / 28 Oct 2009, 1256747199.txt / 28 Oct 2009, 1256760240.txt / 28 Oct 2009, 1256765544.txt / 28 Oct 2009, 1257532857.txt / 06 Nov 2009, 1257546975.txt / 06 Nov 2009, 1257847147.txt / 10 Nov 2009, 1257874826.txt / 10 Nov 2009, 1257881012.txt / 10 Nov 2009, 1257888920.txt / 10 Nov 2009, 1258039134.txt / 12 Nov 2009, 1258053464.txt / 12 Nov 2009
“More later.”
No doubt, I’m looking forward to hearing it, as are others I am sure …
“Scotland Yard on line 2, they’d like a word with you!“
“Over the 20th century, ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic main development region warmed during peak hurricane season, with the most pronounced warming occurring over the last four decades.” Earth GaugeWe give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
His email is
paul.hudson@bbc.co.uk
—-
ZING!!!
Comment from the blog:
“Kamboshigh wrote:
Nice one Paul the UK’s answer to Anthony Watts in the making…”
A thought that had occurred to me before.
—-
“Who asked?”
Well, to many in the comments section, he’s just what they’ve been waiting for. The blog is now a congregating point for AGW deniers, just like Watts’.
Nah, Hudson’s an amateur – for starters, he’s too intelligent, too polite, and actually understands something about the climate (though he might be trying to unlearn it).
Booker probably still holds the denialist crown in the UK, though fellow Telegraph blogger James Delingpole is mounting something of a challenge. His blog bio begins with
Hudson isn’t in the same league.
Thanks for checking the dates of the messages against what he wrote. Many people would (seems they have!) have just taken his word for it.
Maybe he meant Nov??
But then if we are supposed to analyse Hudsons mistakes and interpret them, it also makes a joke of analysing a thousand emails in detail.
Of course he could be making a botch of covering up the fact that he doesn’t have any emails. Conspiracy anyone?
Seems likely. The latest email message was dated 12 Nov. Lets not jump to false conclusions.
—-
Official UEA response, includes explanation of the ‘trick’ email:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
Hey, I’ve got some great “tricks”.
Instead of dividing something by 5, I double it and divide by 10.
How many minutes in a day? Well, instead of multiplying 24 by 60, I multiply 12 by 12 (which we all know) and add a zero!
Obviously I’m perverting mathematics with these tricks.
*Now* it gets interesting.
> “Scotland Yard on line 2, they’d like a word with you!“
Oh, sweet justice! If only!
ICBW, but the impression I got was that he meant he was CC’d on some of the emails that discussed his earlier blog article, rather than being sent all the stolen files. His earlier article was published on 9th Oct, so that would make sense with him being CC’d on emails about it on 12th Oct.
The leaked emails don’t change the physical reality. As I noted above we are already seeing changes in biological distribution and weather patterns. How is this explained? Denialists don’t have any evidence to say why these things are happening – sure, they have a few tin-pot theories (from the Sun to God) but how does that help us in reality? It don’t.
The denialists are also committing the creationism logical fallacy that ‘if I can prove you wrong, then by default I am right’ whereby creationists go for evolution on the basis that if they disprove it, then their pet theory must be right – but even if you could prove it is wrong – what is to say that God created the world? Why not Zeus? So even if you could prove that the mainstream AGW theory is incorrect (which a few emails out of context do not) you’ll still have to explain all the real-world effects we are seeing all around us (record floods, again, anyone? Changes in disease patterns, the drowning of Balgladesh, melting glaciers, the changes in weather patterns that led to Darfur crisis and so on).
I mean, as noted here; http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-emails-reveal-nothing-much.html
Thanks
The response about the emails we were all expecting has been posted:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml
erm, what to say??
Nothing really. I don’t think Anthony Watts has anything to fear. But then Hudson is paid by the BBC, I don’t feel so bad about the licence fee now.
Any thought on the following?
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1373
Yes, but they would be unprintable.
Not really. Warming makes ice melt!
I don’t think any of my neurons have made new connections yet, but it is early days. I’ll get back to you on that one.
—-
Why This Email Leak Changes Nothing (as Yet) – aka a call for scepticism….
Denialists had made their mind up about the conclusion then went around looking for evidence to fit it. The email leak, as far as many of them are concerned seems to be a slam dunk, it’s all over now.
I do wish it were true, as climate change even in a mild form means misery and loss for millions. Sadly I can’t see how it is – I can buy into the Denialists’s claims because logic says I can’t and as a sceptic I have to be sceptical of all the arguments put to me.
If you read Dawkins’s new book ‘The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution’ the point he makes over and over is that while creationists push at issues like missing links, even without the fossil record, the genetic evidence alone is overwhelming. So those who for ideological reasons, wish to overturn evolution need to not only overturn the fossil evidence, but they also need to account for the genetic evidence, the evidence from cell biological, population distribution, ecological webs and so on.
The reason why creationism have not even come close to overturning evolution despite over 150 years of trying is that there is simply no evidence they can offer that accounts for what we see in the natural world. All they can do is engage in bureaucratic arguments over the evidence and how it is presented. Put simply, they have nothing real to bring to the table.
The same issue is at play here with climate change. Even if the one of the temperature records were overturned, you still need to account for the changes in sea temperatures, changes in breading patterns, changes in migration patterns, changes in disease patters, in rainfall and monsoons, melting glaciers and so on. All these point to something happening; and fast.
The reason why climate change denialism has not even come close to overturning AGW despite million$ of oil money spend and why this email leak, while embarrassing for some scientists, the weight of evidence is still overwhelming. There is simply no evidence they (denialists) can offer that accounts for what we see in the natural world. All they can do is engage in bureaucratic arguments over the evidence and how it is presented. Put simply, they have nothing real to bring to the table.
Now for those who read science, disputes over the peer review process are nothing new. It happens all the time. Read ScienceBlogs (which I do) or New Scientist (which I do) or people like Ben Goldacre (which I do) and you’d know this. You also know that scientists argue amongst themselves – ‘cos they are human – that’s why a peer review process is so important. It is also why what is said in the emails is no big surprise. So, if the AGW is to be overturned, as a sceptic, the weight of evidence still needs to come from the flat earth society. As a sceptic, simply telling me something is wrong ‘cos you say so, does not cut it. You still need evidence. Point to emails out of context is no where near enough. You need to account for example; why in the north Atlantic, 36 of fish stocks studied, the distribution range of 24 of them had changed in unison with the rising water temperatures that have been occurring off the Northeast since the 1970s? – That is one of hundreds of changes we are seeing.
A sceptic needs to know why. Telling us about the New World Order or some other ‘conspiracy’ is not an answer.
http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-this-email-leak-changes-nothing-as.html
> Denialists had made their mind up about the conclusion then went around looking for evidence to fit it.
If evidence of Professor Jones scrumping* apples as a ten-year old came to light, it would be evidence enough for most Deniers that he was a dishonest scoundrel who must resign forthwith.
*Talking of good, old-fashioned English pastimes, I’ve not read anything from Lord Bedwetter on this ‘scandal’. I’d have thought this would be right up his cul-de-sac: an eighteen page paper, detailing the socialist cancer that is undermining his freedom to eat roast beef and shoot peasants that stray on to his land!
—-
Argh!!! Don’t denialists bloody well realize that it’s not CO2 that heats the atmosphere so much but the positive feedbacks in the system that do so? CO2 is indeed a trace gas but we have increased it by a whopping 25% already! Soon we will have almost doubled it! Why are they so stubborn that they can’t read about how it’s right there in the peer-reviewed literature that the sensitivity of the OVERALL SYSTEM to CO2 is much higher than merely CO2 acting alone as a greenhouse gas. *Any* warming is highly amplified by evaporation of water. And because *any* warming is so amplified we know full well that there could never have been this warm in human history before or we would have died out since you can’t HAVE just slight warming above a certain level but only catastrophic warming. If the so-called Medieval Warm Period was hotter than today then these feedbacks would have fried the earth and killed the Polar Bears. But Polar Bears are still around, right? See any in movies lately? That means it was never hotter than today.
—-
> …we have increased it by a whopping 25% already!
40%. 280 -> 390ppm.
And that is a possible ~15 million year high.
Anyone who does not find that horrifying does not understand what it means.
As greenfyre says, it’s the rate of change that is significant. In geological terms we’re caught in an explosion. Previous ‘explosions’ analogous to this one have eradicated many or most of the species on the planet.
George Carlin’s ‘wisdom’ that “the planet will be fine” or that new species will evolve over the next x million years isn’t very comforting to me….
The Washington Post, Apr. 23, 1899,
OXYGEN IS GIVING OUT;
—
Time Coming When We Must Breathe Artificial Air.
LORD KELVIN’S COLD PREDICTION
—
Eminent Scientists Declare that We Are Burning Up the Available Supply of Oxygen So Fast that It Will Be All Gone Long Before Our Coal Supply Gives Out—Then the Air We Breathe Will Have to Be Manufactured. Prof. Rees’ Statement. Coal and Oxygen Supply. Other Sources of Power. Growing Grain for Oxygen.
—
The time is coming when we must live without air; or, rather, that being a physical impossibility, we must learn to manufacture the air necessary to support life, just as we make bread. “Free as the air we breathe” will some day become an out-of-date expression, for air will then be no longer free, but must be bought or toiled for, just as flour is.
Hey Science never gets it wrong
—-