It's a panel of warmists, but lots of interesting admissions are made, such as that evidence fitting the warmist narrative is over-emphasized.
At 7:00, Hulme says "there has been a pause for sure". He admits in the early 1990s, there was "an idea that [surface temperature would] rise in a linear way...maybe we didn't understand enough about natural cycles".
At 8:00, Hulme admits that in the mid-1990s, there was "a rather simplistic understanding" of global warming. "Models at that time did not have a rich enough understanding of how the oceans worked in order to point out that actually rhythms of the climate could produce pauses and hiatuses".
At 11:20, Czerski claims "scientists tend to be really happy, actually, when [reality] doesn't meet their models, because it means they're going to learn something. There tends to be a delight in it, rather than a disappointment."
At 11:30, Heap asks why Antarctic sea ice has grown, when 95% of the best 50 models had Antarctic sea ice *decreasing* over the last 30 years.
At 19:58, Mark Lynas says "if you're in the polar regions, you might be able to grow pineapples in 2080".
▶ BBC Radio 4 - Costing the Earth, Climate Change: Inconvenient Facts?
The perceived wisdom in the scientific community is that the climate is warming but evidence shows that even though Arctic sea ice is melting, there has actually been a growth in Antarctic sea ice. That, along with a documented slow down in the warming of the climate since 1998, has been a 'stone in the shoe' of the climate change story. So what is happening?
Tom [Heap] is joined by BBC and Met office weather presenter John Hammond to put these 'difficult' climate scenarios to a team of experts: Mark Lynas is an author and environmental campaigner, Mike Hulme is professor of Climate and Culture at Kings College London and Dr Helen Czerski is a broadcaster and 'bubble physicist' at UCL.
With the help of this panel, Costing The Earth discusses how best to communicate anomalies that don't appear in climate models and make the science sometimes hard to comprehend.
Posts
3 comments:
At 11:20, Czerski claims "scientists tend to be really happy, actually, when [reality] doesn't meet their models, because it means they're going to learn something. There tends to be a delight in it, rather than a disappointment."
I don't plan on watching, so can you tell me this: did he say that with a straight face?
I'm getting tired of scientists and politicians trying to get us to believe that scientists aren't human. It's insulting to them and insulting to us.
Czerski is a female--I only heard the audio, so I don't know about any facial expressions...
Read it here, she sure is full of herself and it.
I've never known such flagrant trumpet blowing, boy she must have been an only child.
Pride comes before a fall and she's just a humpty dumpty alarmist.
Post a Comment