You certainly don't understand Tyndall if you think that his hypothesis can be directly applied to the whole Church of Global Warming:)
Poor attempt at misdirection on your part.
Establishing that a greenhouse effect is at work in the atmosphere, and that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas (Tyndall's work), does not mean that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic warming.
Thanks for agreeing with me. So you agree that someone (like yourself) who, rather than saying “I don’t really know the effect that adding CO2 will have, other than a general rise in temperature” says: “the rise in temperature will be neglible” needs to have some actual science to back up those predictions.
Those ice core records show us that previous rises led to further warming thus confirming what was hypothesized, and further, that the climate was sensitive to changes in CO2 due to positive feedbacks.
No they don't. If CO2 is going up, and temperature is going down, then we're not getting any of this magical "further warming". CO2 and global average temperature are decoupled in the ice core record by a significant amount of time, and CO2 is on the *wrong* side to be a significant driver.
Oh for goodness sake. Maybe you should read the actual results rather than relying on Spencer to interpret it for you. The actual ice core record is readily available. Car analogy: If I get in my car and drive off with my foot pressed flat to the floor on the accelerator down a straight road, it is quite possible for the car to briefly slow down if I chance upon a hill that is steep enough. The terrain and the accelerator both contribute to deciding how fast I go. Data on the terrain and the accelerator are readily available. On average, my car is going to accelerate despite periods of deceleration.
At no point in the geological record did CO2 not act as described by Arrhenius based on the work of Tyndall (and others).
Tyndall never said "rising CO2 will cause global average temperature to rise" - Tyndall discovered that CO2 and other greenhouse gases could absorb heat, but he never asserted that from this fundamental principle you could model the earth's climate.
Strawman.
As for Arrhenius, and his naive model, he *is* contradicted by the geological record - CO2 rises in the past did *not* stave off ice ages.
So you agree that climate models can be falsified? And his model did not cover previous geological periods - see below.
You made specific claims about the climate effects of doubling the amount of CO2 (not to mention other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere.
What claims? Cite or it didn't happen.
Certainly: natural climate change has continued even through the birth of humanity and the industrial age,
Which is, of course, in direct contradiction to your earlier admission that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Variations in CO2 and subsequent climate change have always followed the pattern predicted by Arrhenius, Tyndall and Hansen. And variations in climate in the past have always had a cause. To suggest that the current climate change does NOT have a cause is pretty absurd.
No they haven't. Tyndall didn't predict climate changes,
You yourself predicted climate change on the basis of Tyndalls work.
Arrhenius was wrong as per the ice core records,
As per my earlier explanation (which you simply denied), the ice core records show us that the climate has sensitivity to CO2 levels – Arrheniuses model doesn’t work over those timeframes because the primary driver for climate now
Setting aside (momentarily) the fact that you previously admitted that climate models can be falsified
Yes, since that's not something I said:)
That assertion might carry more weight had you not just contradicted yourself...
1. What model did you use to arrive at the conclusion that increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere would have a trivial effect?
The original hypothesis would have been stated something like this - "Increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will always cause an increase in global average temperature."
The original hypothesis was Tyndalls. And that wasn’t it. You literally don’t know the first thing about the science of global warming. Perhaps you should do some research.
The falsification was found in the ice core records that showed CO2 levels lagged temperature changes.
You’re not making any sense.
Those ice core records show us that previous rises led to further warming thus confirming what was hypothesized, and further, that the climate was sensitive to changes in CO2 due to positive feedbacks. In some instances a different event (e.g. milankovich cycle events) led to a change in CO2, which led to CO2 induced climate change, which either enhanced or suppressed the trigger effect.
This is why you need models and not guesswork to do science.
Given that the evidence shows that CO2 can increase, decrease, and even stay the same despite temperature changes, and that the correlation is lagged, it seems reasonable to conclude that if there *is* some effect CO2 has, it is overwhelmed by other natural forcings.
Guesswork. A moments thought would tell you that at different points in the glacial cycle, an external trigger might increase OR decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the trigger gradient might be positive or negative, leading to situations where the CO2 delta suppresses or enhances the triggering effect. At no point in the geological record did CO2 not act as described by Arrhenius based on the work of Tyndall (and others).
This is not hard.
2. Please quantify the boundaries used in your results (i.e above what temperature variance do you classify as "catastrophic"?
I don't believe there is a falsifiable hypothesis for the assertion of *any* catastrophic temperature variance, but I'm welcome to hear yours.
You missed the point. You made specific claims about the climate effects of doubling the amount of CO2 (not to mention other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. Your assertion is useless if you cannot show working.
3. What exact temperature differential does your model predict?
Again, you're assuming I have a competing model.
A valid assumption (see above). Even guesswork (which seems on present evidence to be your methodology) is a model in it’s own way. Not a very good one.
I'm assuming that you're willing to allow that all temperature changes of the earth before humans existed was natural (no extra terrestrial super-gods poking at our planet).
A valid assumption – given that this is logical, and what the science tells us.
The variations observed since the dawn of humanity and the dawn of the industrial age look no different than the variations before - so there is no requirement to assert a new special cause for the current variations
Variations in CO2 and subsequent climate change have always followed the pattern predicted by Arrhenius, Tyndall and Hansen. And variations in climate in the past have always had a cause. To suggest that the current climate change does NOT have a cause
You were the one who compared astrology to a branch of science you have previously admitted was falsifiable.
Are you going to drag out the trivial falsifiability of any non-zero effect of human CO2 and assert that from that we can jump to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Certainly you see that these aren't the same:)
Setting aside (momentarily) the fact that you previously admitted that climate models can be falsified (along with the foundational theory), let's indulge ourselves and take your statement at face value:
1. What model did you use to arrive at the conclusion that increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere would have a trivial effect?
2. Please quantify the boundaries used in your results (i.e above what temperature variance do you classify as "catastrophic"? )
3. What exact temperature differential does your model predict?
4. Where is your model published?
How many variables should be calculated in a model?
The real question is, "how many variables can there be in a complex system before it defies attempts to model it"? If you've got a model with dozens of tweakable variables, you can pretty much make it say *whatever* your preconceived conceit is.
You didn't address the question:
First you told us that models don't test for enough variables:
Of course for both methane and CO2, the problem is that we don't simply have static sources and sinks -> they all interplay in such a complex manner, one cannot simply assert that a single variable drives the entire complex equation.
And then later you said that models that test for many variables can't be trusted: And you think this [modelling a large number of variables] is a *strength* of their models? Give someone enough degrees of freedom and they can show whatever they want to.
How many variables should be calculated in a model?
How many does your model calculate?
But again, the problem you have is well beyond that complexity and inaccuracy of the models you cite - it's the sheer lack of falsifiability of your hypothesis beyond the trivial non-zero effect.
Then why did you previously say that it was falsifiable?
Why did you go further and attempt to falsify the models?
How do you know the results are trivial?
What model did you use to arrive at these conclusions?
Or are you now going to say that even if human CO2 emissions only increase global average temperatures by.000001C/century, we *must act now*?:)
YOU drew conclusions about the effects of doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and gave a precise measure to that prediction. Still waiting for you to show some working.
Dissing the scientific method now?
Should we also believe in fairies?
You think astrology is scientific, if it follows the scientific method in all ways except for requiring falsifiability?
By all means keep banging on about it. You were the one who compared astrology to a branch of science you have previously admitted was falsifiable. Were you wishing on a fairy that I had forgotten the conversation? Might want to try a different fairy. Or has the conversation actually slipped your mind? Are you wondering what else might have slipped you by? Take a moment to ponder that and read on, dear boy.
Read on.
So you assert (without proof).
So falsifiability is optional, and astrology is actually science? Really?
So you don't have proof? By all means, press on with this argument.
Definitely. I infer from this statement that you model does not calculate a large number of variables. Is my inference correct?
You're confusing the idea of the null hypothesis of natural climate change to a competing model. Your battle isn't with me, it's with reality:)
So let's consider your assertions on modelling so far. First you told us that models don't test for enough variables:
Of course for both methane and CO2, the problem is that we don't simply have static sources and sinks -> they all interplay in such a complex manner, one cannot simply assert that a single variable drives the entire complex equation.
And then later you said that models that test for many variables can't be trusted: And you think this [modelling a large number of variables] is a *strength* of their models? Give someone enough degrees of freedom and they can show whatever they want to.
How many variables should be calculated in a model?
I'm going with the you present a factual argument based on empirically verifiable evidence meme.
Astrologists do that all the time. They take factual information about the positions of constellations, and people's birthdays, and present the empirical evidence of people whose horoscopes come true.
Dissing the scientific method now?
Should we also believe in fairies?
The problem? The way we can tell astrology and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aren't *really* science? Neither of them has a falsifiable hypothesis.
So you assert (without proof). And unfortunately for you, I do happen to possess a good memory. Which brings us back to the lying. Should I believe that you have forgotten our previous conversation, or merely that you are lying?
Given climatologists already modelled for a dizzyingly high number of variables
And you think this is a *strength* of their models?
Definitely. I infer from this statement that you model does not calculate a large number of variables. Is my inference correct?
Give someone enough degrees of freedom and they can show whatever they want to.
Well, you might try that, and perhaps you have, and project your deceit onto others. But then, you aren't prepared to show your modelling to anyone, which kinda means that your model has all the believability of a fairy story.
If you are tempted to post alarmist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.:)
Bring it on, fairystoryliarfella;) If you like, you can revert back to the methods previously employed by denialists - the ringing up scientists at home and threatening to kill them and rape their daughters. Bring it on! At 8% and dropping, the more trollish, more absurd your arguments, and the more you repeat them, the more like a cult you appear. So - fire away.
So you're going with the "I'm right because you don't have an alternative" meme?
I'm going with the you present a factual argument based on empirically verifiable evidence meme. Which does seem to be the standard methodolgy used by everybody, excepting your good self (from previous experience, not rushing to judgement).
Ignoring, once again, the null hypothesis which stands true until excluded by some necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement (which you're unable to provide or quote)?
You seem to be making a lot of presumption there. We are talking about your model - the one from which you derived the followiing concerning the complexity of sink interchange: Of course for both methane and CO2, the problem is that we don't simply have static sources and sinks -> they all interplay in such a complex manner, one cannot simply assert that a single variable drives the entire complex equation. Given climatologists already modelled for a dizzyingly high number of variables it's safe to assume your statement means you know of another variable and have modelled for it, otherwise your assertion that (in essence) models aren't complex enough would have no basis.
There is an alternative to my model being right and your model being right - that false dichotomy doesn't include both our models being wrong. Asserting that my ignorance (or anyone else's) somehow means that your *guess* is automatically true is a fallacious argument.
I never suggested you model was right. I'm withholding judgement until I see some evidence.
Start the scientific method, and provide your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Then we can start playing the science game:)
Are you speaking to yourself? In case you aren't I remind you of my earlier (original) statement:
There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.
what you cannot do is to say things which are factually wrong and expect to not be called on it.
Ah, I understand your clarification. Consider yourself called on it:)
Trolling?
My dear fellow. You disappoint me. In the past you were at least able to construct a coherent (if flawed) argument. What happened to you?
Can you explain (in detail) why CO2 and methane being trace gases would make them less likely to affect climate?
Because in comparison to the other greenhouse gases (not to mention other climate driving variables), they simply cannot compete. Of course for both methane and CO2, the problem is that we don't simply have static sources and sinks -> they all interplay in such a complex manner, one cannot simply assert that a single variable drives the entire complex equation.
Well, if you think that there is a better model for the current climate change, then feel free to tell us, in detail, what that model is, along with working. For instance, if you think some other driver (forcing) is causing the current climate change, what is that driver? Is it natural changes in sinks? And show working.
I said no such thing. I said that denialists spread misinformation and lies
And that's *exactly* what someone who has used motivated reasoning to come to their position would say about the other side.
Facts are facts. Therefore, if you wanted to prove that what I called lies are in fact truths, you would tell us how - rather than some absurd ad-hominem.
Again, this is really poor work from you. I expected better.
they are scaremongers: included in their lies is the assertion that a worldwide cabal of scientists have been colluding for 150 years in order to establish a new world order.
Ah, interesting - I hadn't thought of that one.
It's certainly worth considering whether your argument is plausible before making it.
Not every arguments is subjective. Argue all you like about which colour looks best in your bathroom. However, if you try to counter the objective facts of climate change with rhetoric, ad-hominem and misdirection, you can expect others to call you on it. Myths are not the equal of facts.
Maybe you're not a yankee, but actually, we do have this thing called the 1st amendment that means that we can *say* whatever we like.
That is a universal right - what you cannot do is to say things which are factually wrong and expect to not be called on it. As you already know.
As for "lies, misinformation and scaremongering", wouldn't that be what people who are asserting that the world is going to come to a terrible end because of human emissions of a trace gas measured in parts per million?
Can you explain (in detail) why CO2 and methane being trace gases would make them less likely to affect climate? I ask because your assertion is counter intuitive.
I mean, look, if you want to call AGW skeptics liars, and misinformers, I can understand your motivated reasoning to, and you might even be able to make a cogent case for it, but scaremongering? Scaremongering? If anything, skeptics are *refuting* the "imminent doom unless you repent" cries of alarmists.
I said no such thing. I said that denialists spread misinformation and lies - deliberate lies, at least in part. Including the lie that they are sceptics. And they are scaremongers: included in their lies is the assertion that a worldwide cabal of scientists have been colluding for 150 years in order to establish a new world order. And the constant changes of position. It is quite normal for such people to assert several contradictory positions at the same time. They must not truly accept both positions. And the "we'll all be doooooooooommed" if we move to emit a little bit less CO2 and plant a few trees.
There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.
My problem with the entire AGW issue is that people don't seem to look at it from the economic perspective. The costs of cutting emissions enough to make even a little difference is huge, and not enough to save us.
I'd say you haven't thought it through. Whether we cut emissions now, or later, we still need to cut them. If we do not, the climate simply keeps changing for the worse.
If we do it later: (a) We'll need to cut more, because emissions are growing (b) We will need to spend more on actively reducing concentrations in the atmosphere (c) We will at the same time be having to cope with the problems climate change has caused us, e.g. chaotic weather, reduced food stocks, reduced access to fresh water.
And coping with (c) will mean less resources for dealing with (a) and (b). And (b) itself is enormously expensive - like trying to catch a bullet when it has left the gun (rather than (a) which is NOT PULLING THE TRIGGER). We are talking hard limits here. There comes a point at which we will not, physically, be able to solve the issue, and the only out is to die.
. Even without the thawing methane issue many of the models say we are on course for a 4+ degree rise, and doing enough to slow that by 2 degrees could consume almost our entire GDP! Meanwhile the models also indicate the geo-polictical situation as we know it won't tolerate more than 2 degrees.
When Stern modelled the relative costs, mitigation (reducing emissions to a sustainable level) was at around 2-4% of GDP, and doing nothing at around 20%. Of course the interest rates are punishing so even though that modelling was only doen a few years ago, these percentages will BOTH be higher now.
Finally add in feedback issues like this one and the evidence we might have already crossed the tipping point where even if we became carbon neutral today we are still doomed!
The Apollo program and even the ISS provide something of precedent. That is, people are initially interested in the 'human interest' and then interest fades away. We can expect a similar thing to happen if humans ever go to Mars. We might label this the 'first' factor. Since Curiousity is not the 'first' (by a long margin) this would indicate that machines sustain a lower level of interest but over a longer period of time, and for more scientific reasons (Curiosity, Cassini-Huygens, Voyager and the others don't have any 'celebrity' factor, they are just interesting for being explorers).
I'm a fair bit younger than you, but I've already begun to think in some classic old man ways. What is my legacy? What will I leave behind when my short life finishes, to live on through my deeds? I don't want to be remembered for gorging myself on blackberries and ice cream. So: (a) stop handwaving over the fact that you expect others to pay for your retirement on Mars - (b) Stop thinking that the object of your desire has some inherent, universal "good" - it doesn't. It's just something you want.
And yet, all you will be remembered for is gorging yourself on blackberries and ice cream and someone else will be remembered for being the first living human being to step foot on mars.
You appear to have completely missed the point - probably deliberately. Which reflects quite badly on you.
It's too bad you can't figure out why 1 accomplishment is more significant than the other.
It's too bad that you can't convince others of the importance of your cause, thus dooming yourself and your cause to the dusty box of history where we keep the quaint and pitiable. Perhaps if you could give us one reason why you should go to mars beyond the childish, the religious, the maniacal and the genocidal, we might put your request on the list of "things to possibly happen". Not at the top of the list, mind you.
I repeat: "I WANT TO" doesn't qualify as an admirable ambition, any more than a child that wants to eat ice cream.
Enjoy the rest of your meaningless life.
So far the only experience I've had of your judgement indicates that it is not sound - consequently your judgements about my life and it's meaning have no significance.
Infamy is more likely. You don'y get to choose how future generations will regard a venture like this one.
The greatest privilege I can imagine is the chance to live out your years on a frontier, working your fingers to the bone every day to up the survival chances for everyone else.
Frontier mythology is terrific, but it is still myth - the reality of a frontier is completely different to the popular imagination.
At least for the foreseeable future. In the far future, humanity will die out, and there isn't much point in trying to mitigate that risk, that is simply hubris. There is a separate (slight) risk that a huge rock will slam into the earth and wipe out humanity, but that is very unlikely, so it is well down the list. Our mitigation strategy for this risk is to (a) detect and divert the rock (b) Find a way to save as many humans as possible, which means an earthbound mitigation (deep tunnels, underground arks for plants and animals etc.). 7 billion people wiped out and 70 survivors on Mars is not a win scenario.
Meanwhile, our big risk, in terms of likelihood (certain) and consequence (moderate to severe) is anthropogenic climate change. It is so big, and so present in the human psyche that often as not, the attraction of Mars based theme parks and the like merely serve to divert our minds from the task at hand.
Good risk management means starting at the top and working down. Procrastination and dwelling on the largely irrelevant lead to failure. Let's knuckle down and get on with it.
So - tell me again about stupidity and suicide, please?
You want a Mars colony, and want to be there. I want blackberries and ice cream. Which is okay - if I buy the blackberries and ice cream myself. If I carefully handwave over the fact that other people have to pay for my fulfilling a selfish desire, then that is stupid. Proclaiming that others should buy me blackberries and ice cream because "it's humanities destiny!" is stupid. We don't have a destiny.
I'm a fair bit younger than you, but I've already begun to think in some classic old man ways. What is my legacy? What will I leave behind when my short life finishes, to live on through my deeds? I don't want to be remembered for gorging myself on blackberries and ice cream. So: (a) stop handwaving over the fact that you expect others to pay for your retirement on Mars - (b) Stop thinking that the object of your desire has some inherent, universal "good" - it doesn't. It's just something you want.
Alternatively we can scrap the 'manned' mission to Mars, and use those resources on the interesting projects, e.g. the outer moons, or the inner planets. We've been to Mars already. Nothing to see there. Move along.
Skepticism is key to the scientific method. For someone who supposedly pushes science, I don't see why being skeptical is such a bad thing.
Exactly - which is why we continue to be skeptical of those people who claim there are problems with a particular field of science (immunology - with particular reference to vaccines, cancer research , newtonian physics, climatology), but when pressed, cannot tell us what the problem is, and have no data to back their conclusions.
To declare man-made global warming as settled science is a stretch.
Science doesn't matter how he "feels" or what he "believes".
I keep trying to tell various AGW fanatics that, but it never penetrates.
No wonder: your tack is completely wrong if you interpret science as belief and feelings, and try to convince scientists that science is belief and feelings. Did you try convincing them, with, you know, plausible arguments unpinned with repeatable observations and methodology? That might just swing it.
You - literally - don't know the first thing about anthropogenic climate change, yet you are claiming to speak with authority on the subject. That is appalling. It's laughable.
The entire chain of reasoning from observation to required government policy has been so sanctified that any one who questions or doubts even the tiniest aspect of it is labeled a "denier", implying that they are just as bad or worse than those who deny the Holucaust.
Awww. Someone called you a nasty name. Diddums. Here's a thought. Maybe if your theory as to the causes of climate change weren't so patently ridiculous, people wouldn't ridicule you. And maybe if your utter, utter silence on the issue of the observed properties of greenhouse gases wasn't so transparent, then people would accord you a measure of credibility. Credibility, you see, is earned.
It's very puzzling that scientist's predictions of how an imperfectly-understood chaotic system will behave in the future, and recommendations for one particular policy approach to dealing with it, have achieved the inerrant status of Holy Writ, so that those who question any aspect of it must be burned at the stake.
So I take if from that statement that you DON'T claim to understand climate science? Then tell us: Why should we believe you in preference to others who have both repeatable observations and models which are demonstrably reliable and fully documented? Is ignorance now a valid substitute for knowledge? Should myth and error take precedence over fact and observation? Why?
Are companies in the habit of handing out products and services for free?
If you take that companies products and don't pay for them, or consume that companies service and don't pay for them, then I guarantee you will either go to jail or pay remuneration in another form. Don't kid yourself.
If the student's religion requires that they not wear such articles, then I think it's a pretty clear case that the student should not be going to that school.
I'd say that the case is far from clear. After all, a school should be a secular organisation - thus allowing the free exercise of many religions. The school cannot discriminate on the basis of religion - allowing buddhists and Mormons, but not Calvinists or Atheists to attend. There is, of course, a "where practicable" type clause (which is why this relationship is never simple) - but in this case, they are excluding merely on the basis of their own convenience. The school is able to function perfectly well, without her, or any other conscientious objectors up to and including the entire student body having to wear RFID tags.
Would atheist parents really be willing to not indoctrinate their children? This seems unlikely, given the effort expended by many to not allow their children to be exposed to alternative points of view.
What make you think that children can't simply change their minds when they get older? Happens all the time.
Yes, it looks like they made a sensible, informed decision after this meeting, or perhaps before.
By "sensible" you mean that you think all right-minded people agree with it.
Wrong.
It's not the job of the BBC to try and divine what "right thinking" people think and then report this as fact. Their job is to report the facts, as facts - and opinions as a record of diverse opinion. By all appearances, that is what they have done in this case.
This is not the point.
Yes - the point in this case seems to be somewhat fluid...
The point is that the decision was not transparent and that the BBC spent an awful lot of money to avoid transparency.
You said earlier that the BBC has said it abandoned impartiality. How is that not transparent?
What exactly is opaque?
The names of attendees at a seminar doesn't seem really to relate to anything in particular - at this stage, it is information without implication. Unless someone can demonstrate an actual flaw in editorial policy arising from this meeting what does it matter who was there? Are you intending to call these people and congratulate them on their good decision making?
That this is the fist time outside of war where the BBC have made a policy decision to abandon impartiality; and have done so in a blatant non-transparent way.
Not every situation calls for impartiality. There is no need for impartiality when reporting on the link between smioking and cancer, on the shape of the world being round, on the moon landings. These a merely statements of fact. If the BBC had decided to retain impartiality, how would their coverage of the effects of climate change on developing countries have been different? Whose opinion could they have used to 'balance' the widely accepted fact that climate change will in general be bad for those countries and the people that inhabit them? Monktons? Why give airtime to a fraud, if you know it to be a fraud? No. The only sensible conclusion then, is impartial reporitng will yield the same result as showing 'partiality' - the only partiality is toward the facts.
If the point is actually sensible and science based as they claim, and based on that meeting, how are were so few scientists present?
Their behaviour makes it look like they at least think the science is not settled and are trying to hush it up.
Quite the opposite. It's a sign of confidence that the science is settled. No need for the Beeb to scour the country to find some scientist who disgrees - if, indeed, any such scientist can be found in the UK.
The point here is not whether or not deniers are shysters who should not have airtime, but whether or not this is an appropriate way to make policy and spend money.
It sounds, at the moment, like it is. You have yet to demonstrate what the actual procedural problem was with what happened. There is no evidence of the BBC trying to cover up anything, and no reason to suspect them of doing so. Their reasoning - that this meeting fell under Chatham House Rules was agreed by the independent governing body (the FOI tribunal) and is standard journalistic practice - like the protecting of sources.
Slashdot Mirror
The original hypothesis was Tyndalls
You certainly don't understand Tyndall if you think that his hypothesis can be directly applied to the whole Church of Global Warming :)
Poor attempt at misdirection on your part.
Establishing that a greenhouse effect is at work in the atmosphere, and that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas (Tyndall's work), does not mean that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic warming.
Thanks for agreeing with me. So you agree that someone (like yourself) who, rather than saying “I don’t really know the effect that adding CO2 will have, other than a general rise in temperature” says: “the rise in temperature will be neglible” needs to have some actual science to back up those predictions.
Those ice core records show us that previous rises led to further warming thus confirming what was hypothesized, and further, that the climate was sensitive to changes in CO2 due to positive feedbacks.
No they don't. If CO2 is going up, and temperature is going down, then we're not getting any of this magical "further warming". CO2 and global average temperature are decoupled in the ice core record by a significant amount of time, and CO2 is on the *wrong* side to be a significant driver.
Oh for goodness sake. Maybe you should read the actual results rather than relying on Spencer to interpret it for you. The actual ice core record is readily available. Car analogy: If I get in my car and drive off with my foot pressed flat to the floor on the accelerator down a straight road, it is quite possible for the car to briefly slow down if I chance upon a hill that is steep enough. The terrain and the accelerator both contribute to deciding how fast I go. Data on the terrain and the accelerator are readily available. On average, my car is going to accelerate despite periods of deceleration.
At no point in the geological record did CO2 not act as described by Arrhenius based on the work of Tyndall (and others).
Tyndall never said "rising CO2 will cause global average temperature to rise" - Tyndall discovered that CO2 and other greenhouse gases could absorb heat, but he never asserted that from this fundamental principle you could model the earth's climate.
Strawman.
As for Arrhenius, and his naive model, he *is* contradicted by the geological record - CO2 rises in the past did *not* stave off ice ages.
So you agree that climate models can be falsified? And his model did not cover previous geological periods - see below.
You made specific claims about the climate effects of doubling the amount of CO2 (not to mention other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere.
What claims? Cite or it didn't happen.
Certainly: natural climate change has continued even through the birth of humanity and the industrial age, Which is, of course, in direct contradiction to your earlier admission that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Variations in CO2 and subsequent climate change have always followed the pattern predicted by Arrhenius, Tyndall and Hansen. And variations in climate in the past have always had a cause. To suggest that the current climate change does NOT have a cause is pretty absurd.
No they haven't. Tyndall didn't predict climate changes,
You yourself predicted climate change on the basis of Tyndalls work.
Arrhenius was wrong as per the ice core records,
As per my earlier explanation (which you simply denied), the ice core records show us that the climate has sensitivity to CO2 levels – Arrheniuses model doesn’t work over those timeframes because the primary driver for climate now
Setting aside (momentarily) the fact that you previously admitted that climate models can be falsified
Yes, since that's not something I said :)
That assertion might carry more weight had you not just contradicted yourself. ..
1. What model did you use to arrive at the conclusion that increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere would have a trivial effect?
The original hypothesis would have been stated something like this - "Increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will always cause an increase in global average temperature."
The original hypothesis was Tyndalls. And that wasn’t it. You literally don’t know the first thing about the science of global warming. Perhaps you should do some research.
The falsification was found in the ice core records that showed CO2 levels lagged temperature changes.
You’re not making any sense.
Those ice core records show us that previous rises led to further warming thus confirming what was hypothesized, and further, that the climate was sensitive to changes in CO2 due to positive feedbacks. In some instances a different event (e.g. milankovich cycle events) led to a change in CO2, which led to CO2 induced climate change, which either enhanced or suppressed the trigger effect.
This is why you need models and not guesswork to do science.
Given that the evidence shows that CO2 can increase, decrease, and even stay the same despite temperature changes, and that the correlation is lagged, it seems reasonable to conclude that if there *is* some effect CO2 has, it is overwhelmed by other natural forcings.
Guesswork. A moments thought would tell you that at different points in the glacial cycle, an external trigger might increase OR decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the trigger gradient might be positive or negative, leading to situations where the CO2 delta suppresses or enhances the triggering effect. At no point in the geological record did CO2 not act as described by Arrhenius based on the work of Tyndall (and others).
This is not hard.
2. Please quantify the boundaries used in your results (i.e above what temperature variance do you classify as "catastrophic"?
I don't believe there is a falsifiable hypothesis for the assertion of *any* catastrophic temperature variance, but I'm welcome to hear yours.
You missed the point. You made specific claims about the climate effects of doubling the amount of CO2 (not to mention other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. Your assertion is useless if you cannot show working.
3. What exact temperature differential does your model predict?
Again, you're assuming I have a competing model.
A valid assumption (see above). Even guesswork (which seems on present evidence to be your methodology) is a model in it’s own way. Not a very good one.
I'm assuming that you're willing to allow that all temperature changes of the earth before humans existed was natural (no extra terrestrial super-gods poking at our planet).
A valid assumption – given that this is logical, and what the science tells us.
The variations observed since the dawn of humanity and the dawn of the industrial age look no different than the variations before - so there is no requirement to assert a new special cause for the current variations
Variations in CO2 and subsequent climate change have always followed the pattern predicted by Arrhenius, Tyndall and Hansen. And variations in climate in the past have always had a cause. To suggest that the current climate change does NOT have a cause
You were the one who compared astrology to a branch of science you have previously admitted was falsifiable.
Are you going to drag out the trivial falsifiability of any non-zero effect of human CO2 and assert that from that we can jump to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Certainly you see that these aren't the same :)
Setting aside (momentarily) the fact that you previously admitted that climate models can be falsified (along with the foundational theory), let's indulge ourselves and take your statement at face value:
1. What model did you use to arrive at the conclusion that increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere would have a trivial effect?
2. Please quantify the boundaries used in your results (i.e above what temperature variance do you classify as "catastrophic"? )
3. What exact temperature differential does your model predict?
4. Where is your model published?
How many variables should be calculated in a model?
The real question is, "how many variables can there be in a complex system before it defies attempts to model it"? If you've got a model with dozens of tweakable variables, you can pretty much make it say *whatever* your preconceived conceit is.
You didn't address the question:
First you told us that models don't test for enough variables: Of course for both methane and CO2, the problem is that we don't simply have static sources and sinks -> they all interplay in such a complex manner, one cannot simply assert that a single variable drives the entire complex equation. And then later you said that models that test for many variables can't be trusted: And you think this [modelling a large number of variables] is a *strength* of their models? Give someone enough degrees of freedom and they can show whatever they want to. How many variables should be calculated in a model?
How many does your model calculate?
But again, the problem you have is well beyond that complexity and inaccuracy of the models you cite - it's the sheer lack of falsifiability of your hypothesis beyond the trivial non-zero effect.
Then why did you previously say that it was falsifiable?
Why did you go further and attempt to falsify the models?
How do you know the results are trivial?
What model did you use to arrive at these conclusions?
Or are you now going to say that even if human CO2 emissions only increase global average temperatures by .000001C/century, we *must act now*? :)
YOU drew conclusions about the effects of doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and gave a precise measure to that prediction. Still waiting for you to show some working.
Dissing the scientific method now? Should we also believe in fairies?
You think astrology is scientific, if it follows the scientific method in all ways except for requiring falsifiability?
By all means keep banging on about it. You were the one who compared astrology to a branch of science you have previously admitted was falsifiable. Were you wishing on a fairy that I had forgotten the conversation? Might want to try a different fairy. Or has the conversation actually slipped your mind? Are you wondering what else might have slipped you by? Take a moment to ponder that and read on, dear boy.
Read on.
So you assert (without proof).
So falsifiability is optional, and astrology is actually science? Really?
So you don't have proof? By all means, press on with this argument.
Definitely. I infer from this statement that you model does not calculate a large number of variables. Is my inference correct?
You're confusing the idea of the null hypothesis of natural climate change to a competing model. Your battle isn't with me, it's with reality :)
So let's consider your assertions on modelling so far. First you told us that models don't test for enough variables:
Of course for both methane and CO2, the problem is that we don't simply have static sources and sinks -> they all interplay in such a complex manner, one cannot simply assert that a single variable drives the entire complex equation.
And then later you said that models that test for many variables can't be trusted: And you think this [modelling a large number of variables] is a *strength* of their models? Give someone enough degrees of freedom and they can show whatever they want to.
How many variables should be calculated in a model?
I'm going with the you present a factual argument based on empirically verifiable evidence meme.
Astrologists do that all the time. They take factual information about the positions of constellations, and people's birthdays, and present the empirical evidence of people whose horoscopes come true.
Dissing the scientific method now?
Should we also believe in fairies?
The problem? The way we can tell astrology and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aren't *really* science? Neither of them has a falsifiable hypothesis.
So you assert (without proof). And unfortunately for you, I do happen to possess a good memory. Which brings us back to the lying. Should I believe that you have forgotten our previous conversation, or merely that you are lying?
Given climatologists already modelled for a dizzyingly high number of variables
And you think this is a *strength* of their models?
Definitely. I infer from this statement that you model does not calculate a large number of variables. Is my inference correct?
Give someone enough degrees of freedom and they can show whatever they want to.
Well, you might try that, and perhaps you have, and project your deceit onto others. But then, you aren't prepared to show your modelling to anyone, which kinda means that your model has all the believability of a fairy story.
If you are tempted to post alarmist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it. :)
Bring it on, fairystoryliarfella ;) If you like, you can revert back to the methods previously employed by denialists - the ringing up scientists at home and threatening to kill them and rape their daughters. Bring it on! At 8% and dropping, the more trollish, more absurd your arguments, and the more you repeat them, the more like a cult you appear. So - fire away.
So you're going with the "I'm right because you don't have an alternative" meme?
I'm going with the you present a factual argument based on empirically verifiable evidence meme. Which does seem to be the standard methodolgy used by everybody, excepting your good self (from previous experience, not rushing to judgement).
Ignoring, once again, the null hypothesis which stands true until excluded by some necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement (which you're unable to provide or quote)?
You seem to be making a lot of presumption there. We are talking about your model - the one from which you derived the followiing concerning the complexity of sink interchange: Of course for both methane and CO2, the problem is that we don't simply have static sources and sinks -> they all interplay in such a complex manner, one cannot simply assert that a single variable drives the entire complex equation. Given climatologists already modelled for a dizzyingly high number of variables it's safe to assume your statement means you know of another variable and have modelled for it, otherwise your assertion that (in essence) models aren't complex enough would have no basis.
There is an alternative to my model being right and your model being right - that false dichotomy doesn't include both our models being wrong. Asserting that my ignorance (or anyone else's) somehow means that your *guess* is automatically true is a fallacious argument.
I never suggested you model was right. I'm withholding judgement until I see some evidence.
Start the scientific method, and provide your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Then we can start playing the science game :)
Are you speaking to yourself? In case you aren't I remind you of my earlier (original) statement:
There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.
what you cannot do is to say things which are factually wrong and expect to not be called on it.
Ah, I understand your clarification. Consider yourself called on it :)
Trolling?
My dear fellow. You disappoint me. In the past you were at least able to construct a coherent (if flawed) argument. What happened to you?
Can you explain (in detail) why CO2 and methane being trace gases would make them less likely to affect climate?
Because in comparison to the other greenhouse gases (not to mention other climate driving variables), they simply cannot compete. Of course for both methane and CO2, the problem is that we don't simply have static sources and sinks -> they all interplay in such a complex manner, one cannot simply assert that a single variable drives the entire complex equation.
Well, if you think that there is a better model for the current climate change, then feel free to tell us, in detail, what that model is, along with working. For instance, if you think some other driver (forcing) is causing the current climate change, what is that driver? Is it natural changes in sinks? And show working.
I said no such thing. I said that denialists spread misinformation and lies
And that's *exactly* what someone who has used motivated reasoning to come to their position would say about the other side.
Facts are facts. Therefore, if you wanted to prove that what I called lies are in fact truths, you would tell us how - rather than some absurd ad-hominem.
Again, this is really poor work from you. I expected better.
they are scaremongers: included in their lies is the assertion that a worldwide cabal of scientists have been colluding for 150 years in order to establish a new world order.
Ah, interesting - I hadn't thought of that one.
It's certainly worth considering whether your argument is plausible before making it.
Not every arguments is subjective. Argue all you like about which colour looks best in your bathroom. However, if you try to counter the objective facts of climate change with rhetoric, ad-hominem and misdirection, you can expect others to call you on it. Myths are not the equal of facts.
Maybe you're not a yankee, but actually, we do have this thing called the 1st amendment that means that we can *say* whatever we like.
That is a universal right - what you cannot do is to say things which are factually wrong and expect to not be called on it. As you already know.
As for "lies, misinformation and scaremongering", wouldn't that be what people who are asserting that the world is going to come to a terrible end because of human emissions of a trace gas measured in parts per million?
Can you explain (in detail) why CO2 and methane being trace gases would make them less likely to affect climate? I ask because your assertion is counter intuitive.
I mean, look, if you want to call AGW skeptics liars, and misinformers, I can understand your motivated reasoning to, and you might even be able to make a cogent case for it, but scaremongering? Scaremongering? If anything, skeptics are *refuting* the "imminent doom unless you repent" cries of alarmists.
I said no such thing. I said that denialists spread misinformation and lies - deliberate lies, at least in part. Including the lie that they are sceptics. And they are scaremongers: included in their lies is the assertion that a worldwide cabal of scientists have been colluding for 150 years in order to establish a new world order. And the constant changes of position. It is quite normal for such people to assert several contradictory positions at the same time. They must not truly accept both positions. And the "we'll all be doooooooooommed" if we move to emit a little bit less CO2 and plant a few trees.
There isn't any need, nor motivation to persuade anyone. Denialists can think what they like. What they cannot do, is say what they like. If you are tempted to post denialist lies, misinformation and scaremongering, then you will be called on it. So get used to it.
My problem with the entire AGW issue is that people don't seem to look at it from the economic perspective. The costs of cutting emissions enough to make even a little difference is huge, and not enough to save us.
I'd say you haven't thought it through. Whether we cut emissions now, or later, we still need to cut them. If we do not, the climate simply keeps changing for the worse.
If we do it later: (a) We'll need to cut more, because emissions are growing (b) We will need to spend more on actively reducing concentrations in the atmosphere (c) We will at the same time be having to cope with the problems climate change has caused us, e.g. chaotic weather, reduced food stocks, reduced access to fresh water.
And coping with (c) will mean less resources for dealing with (a) and (b). And (b) itself is enormously expensive - like trying to catch a bullet when it has left the gun (rather than (a) which is NOT PULLING THE TRIGGER). We are talking hard limits here. There comes a point at which we will not, physically, be able to solve the issue, and the only out is to die.
. Even without the thawing methane issue many of the models say we are on course for a 4+ degree rise, and doing enough to slow that by 2 degrees could consume almost our entire GDP! Meanwhile the models also indicate the geo-polictical situation as we know it won't tolerate more than 2 degrees.
When Stern modelled the relative costs, mitigation (reducing emissions to a sustainable level) was at around 2-4% of GDP, and doing nothing at around 20%. Of course the interest rates are punishing so even though that modelling was only doen a few years ago, these percentages will BOTH be higher now. Finally add in feedback issues like this one and the evidence we might have already crossed the tipping point where even if we became carbon neutral today we are still doomed!
The Apollo program and even the ISS provide something of precedent. That is, people are initially interested in the 'human interest' and then interest fades away. We can expect a similar thing to happen if humans ever go to Mars. We might label this the 'first' factor. Since Curiousity is not the 'first' (by a long margin) this would indicate that machines sustain a lower level of interest but over a longer period of time, and for more scientific reasons (Curiosity, Cassini-Huygens, Voyager and the others don't have any 'celebrity' factor, they are just interesting for being explorers).
I'm a fair bit younger than you, but I've already begun to think in some classic old man ways. What is my legacy? What will I leave behind when my short life finishes, to live on through my deeds? I don't want to be remembered for gorging myself on blackberries and ice cream. So: (a) stop handwaving over the fact that you expect others to pay for your retirement on Mars - (b) Stop thinking that the object of your desire has some inherent, universal "good" - it doesn't. It's just something you want.
And yet, all you will be remembered for is gorging yourself on blackberries and ice cream and someone else will be remembered for being the first living human being to step foot on mars.
You appear to have completely missed the point - probably deliberately. Which reflects quite badly on you.
It's too bad you can't figure out why 1 accomplishment is more significant than the other.
It's too bad that you can't convince others of the importance of your cause, thus dooming yourself and your cause to the dusty box of history where we keep the quaint and pitiable. Perhaps if you could give us one reason why you should go to mars beyond the childish, the religious, the maniacal and the genocidal, we might put your request on the list of "things to possibly happen". Not at the top of the list, mind you. I repeat: "I WANT TO" doesn't qualify as an admirable ambition, any more than a child that wants to eat ice cream.
Enjoy the rest of your meaningless life.
So far the only experience I've had of your judgement indicates that it is not sound - consequently your judgements about my life and it's meaning have no significance.
Suicide? More like immortality.
Infamy is more likely. You don'y get to choose how future generations will regard a venture like this one.
The greatest privilege I can imagine is the chance to live out your years on a frontier, working your fingers to the bone every day to up the survival chances for everyone else.
Frontier mythology is terrific, but it is still myth - the reality of a frontier is completely different to the popular imagination.
How long do you think we can afford to wait?
Honestly?
Forever.
At least for the foreseeable future. In the far future, humanity will die out, and there isn't much point in trying to mitigate that risk, that is simply hubris. There is a separate (slight) risk that a huge rock will slam into the earth and wipe out humanity, but that is very unlikely, so it is well down the list. Our mitigation strategy for this risk is to (a) detect and divert the rock (b) Find a way to save as many humans as possible, which means an earthbound mitigation (deep tunnels, underground arks for plants and animals etc.). 7 billion people wiped out and 70 survivors on Mars is not a win scenario.
Meanwhile, our big risk, in terms of likelihood (certain) and consequence (moderate to severe) is anthropogenic climate change. It is so big, and so present in the human psyche that often as not, the attraction of Mars based theme parks and the like merely serve to divert our minds from the task at hand.
Good risk management means starting at the top and working down. Procrastination and dwelling on the largely irrelevant lead to failure. Let's knuckle down and get on with it.
So - tell me again about stupidity and suicide, please?
You want a Mars colony, and want to be there. I want blackberries and ice cream. Which is okay - if I buy the blackberries and ice cream myself. If I carefully handwave over the fact that other people have to pay for my fulfilling a selfish desire, then that is stupid. Proclaiming that others should buy me blackberries and ice cream because "it's humanities destiny!" is stupid. We don't have a destiny.
I'm a fair bit younger than you, but I've already begun to think in some classic old man ways. What is my legacy? What will I leave behind when my short life finishes, to live on through my deeds? I don't want to be remembered for gorging myself on blackberries and ice cream. So: (a) stop handwaving over the fact that you expect others to pay for your retirement on Mars - (b) Stop thinking that the object of your desire has some inherent, universal "good" - it doesn't. It's just something you want.
Alternatively we can scrap the 'manned' mission to Mars, and use those resources on the interesting projects, e.g. the outer moons, or the inner planets. We've been to Mars already. Nothing to see there. Move along.
Skepticism is key to the scientific method. For someone who supposedly pushes science, I don't see why being skeptical is such a bad thing.
Exactly - which is why we continue to be skeptical of those people who claim there are problems with a particular field of science (immunology - with particular reference to vaccines, cancer research , newtonian physics, climatology), but when pressed, cannot tell us what the problem is, and have no data to back their conclusions.
To declare man-made global warming as settled science is a stretch.
Based on what data?
Science doesn't matter how he "feels" or what he "believes".
I keep trying to tell various AGW fanatics that, but it never penetrates.
No wonder: your tack is completely wrong if you interpret science as belief and feelings, and try to convince scientists that science is belief and feelings. Did you try convincing them, with, you know, plausible arguments unpinned with repeatable observations and methodology? That might just swing it.
It starts with observations of global climate
Wrong.
I'll repeat that for emphasis
It starts with observations of global climate
Wrong.
You - literally - don't know the first thing about anthropogenic climate change, yet you are claiming to speak with authority on the subject. That is appalling. It's laughable.
The entire chain of reasoning from observation to required government policy has been so sanctified that any one who questions or doubts even the tiniest aspect of it is labeled a "denier", implying that they are just as bad or worse than those who deny the Holucaust.
Awww. Someone called you a nasty name. Diddums. Here's a thought. Maybe if your theory as to the causes of climate change weren't so patently ridiculous, people wouldn't ridicule you. And maybe if your utter, utter silence on the issue of the observed properties of greenhouse gases wasn't so transparent, then people would accord you a measure of credibility. Credibility, you see, is earned.
It's very puzzling that scientist's predictions of how an imperfectly-understood chaotic system will behave in the future, and recommendations for one particular policy approach to dealing with it, have achieved the inerrant status of Holy Writ, so that those who question any aspect of it must be burned at the stake.
So I take if from that statement that you DON'T claim to understand climate science? Then tell us: Why should we believe you in preference to others who have both repeatable observations and models which are demonstrably reliable and fully documented? Is ignorance now a valid substitute for knowledge? Should myth and error take precedence over fact and observation? Why?
If you take that companies products and don't pay for them, or consume that companies service and don't pay for them, then I guarantee you will either go to jail or pay remuneration in another form. Don't kid yourself.
If the student's religion requires that they not wear such articles, then I think it's a pretty clear case that the student should not be going to that school.
I'd say that the case is far from clear. After all, a school should be a secular organisation - thus allowing the free exercise of many religions. The school cannot discriminate on the basis of religion - allowing buddhists and Mormons, but not Calvinists or Atheists to attend. There is, of course, a "where practicable" type clause (which is why this relationship is never simple) - but in this case, they are excluding merely on the basis of their own convenience. The school is able to function perfectly well, without her, or any other conscientious objectors up to and including the entire student body having to wear RFID tags.
NOT COMMITTING A CRIME is considered a valid defence - in some countries...
What make you think that children can't simply change their minds when they get older? Happens all the time.
Yes, it looks like they made a sensible, informed decision after this meeting, or perhaps before.
By "sensible" you mean that you think all right-minded people agree with it.
Wrong.
It's not the job of the BBC to try and divine what "right thinking" people think and then report this as fact. Their job is to report the facts, as facts - and opinions as a record of diverse opinion. By all appearances, that is what they have done in this case.
This is not the point.
Yes - the point in this case seems to be somewhat fluid...
The point is that the decision was not transparent and that the BBC spent an awful lot of money to avoid transparency.
You said earlier that the BBC has said it abandoned impartiality. How is that not transparent?
What exactly is opaque?
The names of attendees at a seminar doesn't seem really to relate to anything in particular - at this stage, it is information without implication. Unless someone can demonstrate an actual flaw in editorial policy arising from this meeting what does it matter who was there? Are you intending to call these people and congratulate them on their good decision making?
That this is the fist time outside of war where the BBC have made a policy decision to abandon impartiality; and have done so in a blatant non-transparent way.
Not every situation calls for impartiality. There is no need for impartiality when reporting on the link between smioking and cancer, on the shape of the world being round, on the moon landings. These a merely statements of fact. If the BBC had decided to retain impartiality, how would their coverage of the effects of climate change on developing countries have been different? Whose opinion could they have used to 'balance' the widely accepted fact that climate change will in general be bad for those countries and the people that inhabit them? Monktons? Why give airtime to a fraud, if you know it to be a fraud? No. The only sensible conclusion then, is impartial reporitng will yield the same result as showing 'partiality' - the only partiality is toward the facts.
If the point is actually sensible and science based as they claim, and based on that meeting, how are were so few scientists present?
Their behaviour makes it look like they at least think the science is not settled and are trying to hush it up.
Quite the opposite. It's a sign of confidence that the science is settled. No need for the Beeb to scour the country to find some scientist who disgrees - if, indeed, any such scientist can be found in the UK.
The point here is not whether or not deniers are shysters who should not have airtime, but whether or not this is an appropriate way to make policy and spend money.
It sounds, at the moment, like it is. You have yet to demonstrate what the actual procedural problem was with what happened. There is no evidence of the BBC trying to cover up anything, and no reason to suspect them of doing so. Their reasoning - that this meeting fell under Chatham House Rules was agreed by the independent governing body (the FOI tribunal) and is standard journalistic practice - like the protecting of sources.