Science by press release

By stoat on September 28, 2009.

We all hate science by press release which is why we all love the good old stodgy UKMO (now rebranded the Met Office, note no dot) who would never write Met Office warns of catastrophic global warming in our lifetimes oh no of course not. The Torygraph has much the same thing. Sigh. They seem to have delegated the pressing to Oxford (the shame; oh no, you can have the UKMO instead but it is equally vapid) and it is all in aid of some conference 4 degrees and beyond; "beyond" apparently in reference to their bizarre typography.

Actual substance seems to be rather lacking; Nurture does its best with thin material. It looks to like A1F1 (i.e. high emissions) and weakening the sinks and who knows what else in order to pump up the CO2. Hopefully they will publish the actual research at some point - though that is so last year, perhaps they will be really "hip" and tweet it instead (bloody hell I was only joking I didn't realise they would :-().

Tags
climate snarking

More like this

The malign Nature effect, again
All the blogosphere is abuzz with Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector. I don't have much to say that JA hasn't already said. But that isn't going to stop me saying it. Firstly they've done something very odd with the reference model data in fig 4. The std IPCC…
Atmospheric CO2 levels make huge jump ... or do they?
A Reuters story about startling high levels of carbon dixoide in the air near the North Pole caught my eye this week. Levels of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from human activities, rose to 392 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere in Svalbard in December.... 392? That seems awfully…
The Australian's War on Science 57: the Monckton Gallop
The Australian continues to express institutional contempt for science, scientists and the scientific method with a piece by Christopher Monckton Graham Readfern has already commented on some of the errors in Monckton's piece, but there are plenty more. Cap-and-tax in Europe has been a wickedly…
A tale of two court cases
Neither of which has anything to do with climate change. They are: * Foster parent ban: 'extreme distress' of 'anti-gay' Christians' over ruling courtesy of the Torygraph; and * ECJ gender ruling hits insurance costs God hates fags I was going to rant about the first one but I won't (err, other…

So, if I understand the post correctly (though I think I do not :-)), we do not need further warming and warning, in order to limit CO2 emissions?

Or is the message that the science is not there, where scientists (Richard Betts? HJ Schelnhuber?) or media put it? (you know, media *always* choose the extreme of the story...)

Or that simply 4°C is "too much"? Or You dont believe that Hadley climate model reasonably represents carbon feedbacks?

Sorry, too much questions.. :-)

[My post was supposed to say that it is rather hard to find out what they are seeing as a new problem, since they are rather short on what they have actually done. I think what they have done is, effectively, to push the CO2 levels higher than before so - surprise - it gets warmer. But I'm guessing -W]