Zep Tepi wrote:Hey Ray, very good to see you

Great to be back, Zep! Good to "see" you too!
There have been a few programmes on the tv over here which have attempted to show that the deniers have it all wrong. There is one tv personality on the BBC, Professor Brian Cox, who even goes so far as to call all of those people "nobbers".
Well, last time I checked the scientific method, it didn't include calling people who question a claim derogatory names!

Know Prof Cox from his Discovery Channel series. Would be interested if he did more than his pop-sciy stuff he does on his shows, for instance talking about claims based on MODELS (which admittedly do not capture anywhere near the non-linear and MIMO complexity of the earth climate) rather than claims based on evidence and methods which are open to all to review and repeat (those damned UEA CRU guys who just don't think they should release all their raw data, nor all their methods such that people can reproduce/validate what they did).
But beyond Prof Cox, the Climategate II set of releases did have a juicy little tidbit in there that should call into question just how impartial the BBC can be in presenting this issue:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/c ... t-the-bbc/The new emails reveal that not only was the CMEP (RH: AGW seminars held at the BBC at request of UEA) being sponsored by the Tyndall Centre (UEA) to promote its agenda in the media, but at the same Roger Harrabin was on the Advisory board of the Tyndall Centre! (from 2002 until at least the end of 2005)
and then the actual gem from the Climategate II email treasure trove:
The BBC environment/science team clearly felt more aligned with the climate scientists at UEA, in 2004 Alex Kirby wrote to Phil Jones, making it quite clear his contempt for ‘sceptics (ie loonies) at a time when the BBC as a whole seems to try to have some impartiality for ‘balance’ but it is clearly failing.
“Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish.
I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece.
But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
say something.
I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats” (email 4894)
Zep Tepi wrote:One of the most hard hitting programs included a visit to Nasa, where one of the scientists said the reality just cannot be denied and to do so was beyond the pale (or words to that effect).
Yes, I see lots of talking heads for the AGW crowd, but very little (if any) review of any sort of real evidence (not models) which shows not ONLY that the globe has warmed, on average, over the past 100 years, but also the more important
evidence that proves mankind's CO2 is the primary culprit. As we know, talk is cheap, but evidence is not.
So, where do we stand?!
Well, I do not think anyone would argue with the fact that CO2 content has continued to rise in the atmosphere for the entire 2000-2010 decade. But what has NOT happened in concert with that is the temperature anomaly has NOT risen. In fact, it has remained statistically flat:

And then of course there is the recent paper (which includes authors from the UK MET and NASA themselves) which report on the solar cycle 25 predictions:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... again.htmlAccording to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
So you tell me...where do YOU think we stand?
Ray