Video from EUXTV describing the current events (edited by Raymond Frenken), also featuring a short interview to Adela, Diego and me.
p.s. This article was crossposted TH!NK ABOUT IT - Climate Change blogging competition.
There is no way to get inside the Bella Centre. There is police everywhere, the Bella metro station is closed and things don't look very bright. In a time like this, I thought a little laugh could be of help.
Click on the image for full size.
p.s. Thanks to xkcd for the idea. ;)
p.p.s. This article was crossposted on the TH!NK ABOUT IT - Climate Change blogging competition.
Vitezslav Kremlik suggests that the temperatures over the last 10 years have actually stopped increasing, and that a cooling era is about to come. While I would very much like to agree with him and experience this phenomena (we could finally focus all of our attention on other issues, such as poverty, famine, AIDS, malaria, environmental pollution, waste management, fighting criminal organisations, soil degradation, biodiversity destruction, water shortage, et cetera), but sadly, the numbers I have are very different.
According to NASA and its "Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation" from the "GISS Surface Temperature Analysis", 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1) and the ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008.
Figure 1. Left: Annual-means of global-mean temperature anomaly Right: Global map of surface temperature anomalies, in degrees Celsius, for 2008. (Click for PDF.)
Global Warming. The Earth became the newest Waterworld. by SoftPIX_Techie
There is an article by By Christopher Booker which goes something like this.
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.
If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)
Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.
Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.
Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.
Global Warming (Effetto Serra) by Roberto Rizzato
It's been circulating on the internet over the last few days and it spread out virally. So, who exactly is the author of this masterpiece? Let's find that out.
- Booker's scientific claims, which include the false assertion that white asbestos (chrysotile) is "chemically identical to talcum powder"  were analysed in detail by Richard Wilson in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008). (The chemical formula for talc is H2Mg3(SiO3)4 or Mg3Si4O10(OH)2, while the formula for chrysotile, the primary ingredient of white asbestos, is Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4).
- Wilson also highlighted Christopher Booker's repeated endorsement of the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle, who has claimed to be "the world's foremost authority on asbestos science", but who in 2005 was convicted under the UK's Trade Descriptions Act  of making false claims about his qualifications, and who the BBC has accused of basing his reputation on "lies about his credentials, unaccredited tests, and self aggrandisement"..
- Christopher Booker's scientific claims about asbestos have been criticized several times by the UK government's Health and Safety Executive. In 2002, the HSE's Director General, Timothy Walker, wrote that Booker's articles on asbestos had been "misinformed and do little to increase public understanding of a very important occupational health issue.".
- In 2005, the Health and Safety Executive issued a rebuttal after Christopher Booker wrote an article suggesting, incorrectly, that the HSE had agreed with him that white asbestos posed "no medical risk".
- In 2006, the HSE published a further rebuttal after Christopher Booker had claimed, again incorrectly, that the Health and Safety Laboratory had concluded that the white asbestos contained within "artex" textured coatings posed "no health risk". .
- In May 2008, the Health and Safety Executive accused Booker of writing an article that was "substantially misleading". In the article, published by the Sunday Telegraph earlier that month, Booker had claimed, falsely, that a paper produced in 2000 by two HSE statisticians, Hodgson and Darnton, had 'concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero"'.
But who am I to gudge? And beside, these things abou him do not say anything on the content of the article itself. Fair enough, let's go deeper. Booker's articles in The Daily Telegraph on asbestos and also on global warming have been challenged by George Monbiot in an article in The Guardian newspaper . Read it through. I also found some interesting comments on the reddit page regarding this article. Here's a collection of the smartest remarks:
If you think this was great, you should wait until I publish my landmark paper, "Twenty Years of Climate Science Disproven By My Astute Observation That It Was Kind Of Warm Here Last Month".
Don't forget the chapter on "Even in rising average temperature, some places will be colder than that and some places will be hotter". Global weather allows for some truly bizarre anomalous local aberrations.
A few measurement over a single month do not constitute hard evidence for a pattern, and the fact that a pseudoscientist is reporting it with the smirking ambition of debunking global warming studies without actually oing through the scientific process of analysing data and publish apapers accordingly it tells a lot about the credibility of the author. last time I checked the scientific consensus by real scientists was overwhelming, as reported by the peer-reviewed process. Until I see hard evidence against it I will not waste my valuable time debunking an attention freak that posts a questionable article.
- ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1381270/Christopher-Bookers-Notebook.html
- ^ http://www.bohs.org/newsArticle.aspx?newsItem=14
- ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/items/01/2006_42_wed.shtml
- ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/02/17/dt1704.xml
- ^ http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/record/st151205.htm
- ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1505199/Christopher-Booker's-notebook.html
- ^ http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/record/st060806.htm
- ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1525683/Christopher-Booker%27s-notebook.html
- ^ http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/record/tel250508.htm
- ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/25/do2502.xml
- ^ http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/44/8/565
- ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/23/controversiesinscience.health