Superstorm! Aaaargh!

Andy3

Banned
The BBC are at it again - Superstorm (Sunday): "It's the near future and GLOBAL WARMING has made the threat of ever more ferocious hurricanes a reality in this fact-based drama'.
Fact based?:rotfl: For Heaven's sake! I'll bet this was made by the Horizon team and probably sponsored by the Independent. Not long ago, a bloke called Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC when he wrote a truthful piece about hurricanes NOT being caused by global warming. His boss at the IPCC told him to link hurricanes to GW, but he refused and walked out.
Now here's the BBC making it all up again. No guesses which side the BEEB are on.
 

MWP1985

Well-known Member
COMING SOON! From the creators of 'Superstorm' comes 'Gord Help Us!'. David Morrissey stars as Gordon Brown who, on a hiking trip up Snowdon, meets the President of Earth, Al Gore (played by himself), who gives Gordon the challenge of tackling climate change and reducing the UK's carbon dioxide output by 50% in the next 10 years. But there's a twist; in order to do this, Gordon is given supernatural powers by Gore which turn him into a 200-metre tall God, sworn to stamp on coal-fired power stations and rugby-tackle incoming depression weather systems.

Gord had better watch out though, that pesky Martin Durkin has found the Holy Grail and has attained God-like powers as well! Will it be the end of the world as we know it? Gord Help Us!
 

njp

Well-known Member
Not long ago, a bloke called Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC when he wrote a truthful piece about hurricanes NOT being caused by global warming. His boss at the IPCC told him to link hurricanes to GW, but he refused and walked out.
That's not what happened at all, of course.

Landsea's position was that there was insufficient evidence to be sure of a causal link bettween global warming and increases in recent hurricane intensity and frequency. He felt that Kevin Trenberth at the IPCC was misusing his status as an IPCC lead author to give added weight to his personal views when making public pronouncements on the subject. Nothing to do with what the IPCC itself was saying. He resigned over the IPCC's refusal to censure Trenberth.

So, to summarise: Landsea never wrote the piece you said he did, and was never asked to do what you said he was asked to do.
 

Steve.J.Davies

Well-known Member
not quite the full story there n old bean.
see
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0

esecially
"asked the IPCC leadership for assurances that your work for the IPCC's 2007 report would be true to science: "[Dr. Trenberth] seems to have already come to the conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity and has publicly stated so. This does not reflect the consensus within the hurricane research community. ... Thus I would like assurance that what will be included in the IPCC report will reflect the best available information and the consensus within the scientific community most expert on the specific topic."

The assurance didn't come. "

a horse of a totally different colour . . .
 

toycollector

Active Member
not quite the full story there n old bean.
see
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0

esecially
"asked the IPCC leadership for assurances that your work for the IPCC's 2007 report would be true to science: "[Dr. Trenberth] seems to have already come to the conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity and has publicly stated so. This does not reflect the consensus within the hurricane research community. ... Thus I would like assurance that what will be included in the IPCC report will reflect the best available information and the consensus within the scientific community most expert on the specific topic."

The assurance didn't come. "

a horse of a totally different colour . . .
Don't tell me someones twisting the facts again? The BBC, Al Gore and Our saviour Mr T would be proud!!
 

njp

Well-known Member
Strange thing is his open letter is available for all to read. See

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

Anyone who reads it will see the true story is quite different from n's version of it 'of course'.
Looks rather similar to me, Steve. Perhaps you'd like to point out the part where he tells us that he was "told to link hurricanes to GW", and then relates how he refused to do so and walked out. That bit seems to be missing from the copy I read.
 

Steve.J.Davies

Well-known Member
Looks rather similar to me, Steve. Perhaps you'd like to point out the part where he tells us that he was "told to link hurricanes to GW", and then relates how he refused to do so and walked out. That bit seems to be missing from the copy I read.
Oh dear - you seem rather confused. My correction was to your spin and with the published story. You are quoting andy3 above for some reason.
Perhaps to try avoid the difference between your description of Landsea and what actually happened ?

Viz:-
"Landsea's position was that there was insufficient evidence to be sure of a causal link bettween global warming and increases in recent hurricane intensity and frequency. He felt that Kevin Trenberth at the IPCC was misusing his status as an IPCC lead author to give added weight to his personal views when making public pronouncements on the subject. Nothing to do with what the IPCC itself was saying. He resigned over the IPCC's refusal to censure Trenberth."

as for "insufficient evidence" he actually said
"Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. "

As 'insufficient evidence' and 'strong evidence' look similar to you may I suggest you withdraw from any jury service you get called for. Just explain to court that you can't tell this difference and they will be glad to relieve you I am sure.

As for the IPCCs 'failure to censure' the real reason is
"It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead auth or; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, whic h is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Cl imate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation---though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements---would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."


quite quite different.


Your attempt to persist is misrepresenting what actually went on when it is all in the public record is wrong headed in the extreme.
 

Steve.J.Davies

Well-known Member
So Andy3's version was rather wide of the mark then, Steve? Just as I said.

You said
"Landsea's position was that there was insufficient evidence to be sure of a causal link bettween global warming and increases in recent hurricane intensity and frequency. He felt that Kevin Trenberth at the IPCC was misusing his status as an IPCC lead author to give added weight to his personal views when making public pronouncements on the subject. Nothing to do with what the IPCC itself was saying. He resigned over the IPCC's refusal to censure Trenberth."

the public record and my posts have shown this to a ludicrous mis-represetation of what actually happened. Not 'just as you said' at all, just the opposite really.


"as for "insufficient evidence" he actually said
"Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. "

As 'insufficient evidence' and 'strong evidence' look similar to you may I suggest you withdraw from any jury service you get called for. Just explain to court that you can't tell this difference and they will be glad to relieve you I am sure."

Your experimental physics must have been fun - or was was it just the write ups that could not tell the difference between "insufficient evidence"
and "the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies"

for you to claim 'insufficient' it has be a blatant attempt to tell the opposite of what actually happened or your GW blinkers or sheer incompetence. Unless you made it up or just quoted some realclimate post without researching the actual facts....

What ever - the more often you call black white the more you lessen yourself.
You can see this but yet you are compelled to do it - or are unable to stop yourself. Different side of the same pancake..
 

chriszzzzzz

Active Member
Can someone please enlighten me as to why people bother with different threads?:confused:
The same people re-hash the same arguments whilst hi-jacking every thread to feed their over inflated ego's.
Back on topic....
The same thing happened during the Cold War with the nuclear threat. TV always made programmes about the very worst case scenario invented by scientists. It's just been made worse by the advent of CGI. I don't think the general public are as gullible as they used to be. Besides it's been done to death at the cinema.
 

MWP1985

Well-known Member
Not only has the subject of 'Superstorm' been done before (The Day After Tomorrow) but the BBC is notorious for making CGI-laden doomsday documentaries. Anybody remember Horizon's 'Mega-Tsunami: Wave of Destruction' that aired a few years ago? It predicted that there would be a cataclysmic super-volcanic eruption from Cumbre Vieja on the Canary Island of La Palma that would create a monster tsunami flattening the East coast of the USA amongst other places. The programme was full of dodgy science and exaggerated figures that were later entirely debunked by many geologists and tsunami experts though there is still no 'consensus'.

Does that mean that those who don't believe it will happen are 'Atlantic Mega-Tsunami Deniers'?
 

Steve.J.Davies

Well-known Member
Sorry Chriszzz, i was trying to keep it to Hurricane point. Landsea fairly unequivocal on it being a storm in a teacup (mea culpa :) ) Hence BBC prog looks dubious. we'll see I suppose.

You are right - remember all the nuclear winter talk.. IIRC there were melons growing in at the H bomb site(s) in Japan the year following the event(s).

Governments by their nature and leaning want the population to be scared of something, years and years of it escalating has got us where we are today.
I suppose the next one will be solar collapse/ massive asteroids/ the mysterons ..
 

njp

Well-known Member
You are right - remember all the nuclear winter talk.. IIRC there were melons growing in at the H bomb site(s) in Japan the year following the event(s)

Those were A bombs, not H bombs. And they had a rather small explosive yield.

As for the melons, I don't doubt for a moment that they would grow. Whether I'd want to eat one is another matter. I'd want to see some radiation measurements first.
 

damo_in_sale

Well-known Member
Those were A bombs, not H bombs. And they had a rather small explosive yield.

As for the melons, I don't doubt for a moment that they would grow. Whether I'd want to eat one is another matter. I'd want to see some radiation measurements first.

I use enriched Uranium toothpaste, never had any problems!
 

njp

Well-known Member
Well, did anyone watch it?

I thought the "Science of Superstorm" follow-up programme on BBC2 was rather more interesting.
 

damo_in_sale

Well-known Member
Well, did anyone watch it?

I thought the "Science of Superstorm" follow-up programme on BBC2 was rather more interesting.

I wan't aware the BBC did science anymore.
 

njp

Well-known Member
I wan't aware the BBC did science anymore.
They do "dumbed down" science. But actually this wasn't bad. A reasonable selection of talking heads, along with some nice archive footage of previous weather modification efforts (project stormfury) in the 1960's, and interviews with some of the participants in those attempts.
 

damo_in_sale

Well-known Member
They do "dumbed down" science. But actually this wasn't bad. A reasonable selection of talking heads, along with some nice archive footage of previous weather modification efforts (project stormfury) in the 1960's, and interviews with some of the participants in those attempts.

For me the BBC is a discredited source. In fact, it is as pathetic as the dodo was. Hopefully it will go the same way.
 

njp

Well-known Member
For me the BBC is a discredited source. In fact, it is as pathetic as the dodo was. Hopefully it will go the same way.
Well, you won't be surprised that I completely and utterly disagree with you about the BBC.

I've never met a dodo (for rather obvious reasons) but I suspect I would have quite liked them too.
 

damo_in_sale

Well-known Member
Well, you won't be surprised that I completely and utterly disagree with you about the BBC.

I've never met a dodo (for rather obvious reasons) but I suspect I would have quite liked them too.

Would you like me to quote Mr. Marr again?
 

damo_in_sale

Well-known Member
No need. I can remember exactly what he said.

For the benefit of the other forum members, I think you should quote the man. Are you a more authoritative source than Mr. Marr regarding the BBC?

To be honest, I find it astonishing that any thinking man today respects the output of the BBC. BBC News is now akin to a lefty Fox, Panorama is now of little consequence, please don't tell me you think Horizon is of the quality to what it was ten years ago. Newsnight seems more concerned with art than news and seems to have little interest in domestic UK news/politics/economics regardless. And as for Michael Cricks recent appointment as political editor, might not Dennis Penis have been an equally excellent choice? Have you ever seen both men in the same room at the same time?

How about the recent addition to the BBC's catalogue of quality programming, ":censored: off, I'm a hairy woman"? Is that the kind of material which makes you proud of the BBC NJP?

Damo
 

The latest video from AVForums

Star Wars Andor, Woman King, more Star Trek 4K, Rings of Power & the latest TV, movies & 4K releases
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Focal launches Bathys noise-cancelling wireless headphones
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Formovie Theater UST projector hits the UK
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Sonus faber unveils new flagship Arena speaker series
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Sharp showcases its upcoming 4K TV and audio line-up
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
HiFi Rose announces all-in-one RS520 audio streamer
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom