91热爆

the crime of climate science is that it has set in motion taxes worth billions that will be of direct benefit to those who promoted the scaremongering. A huge wealth transfer from poor to rich.

despite the data being based on 'warm only weather stations' these taxes are still in force and will increase and will balloon the carbon trading that has been the home of so many scams and frauds.

even the uber climate happy clappy bunny bbc is to dump the met office for their useless predictions based on their 'models'.

scientists take no oath to 'do no harm'.

'It's a philosophy that extends beyond climate science to all science - and describes a change that's actually already underway, with scientific journals increasingly publishing not only the "methods, results and conclusions" of new research, but all the data involved, and in cases such as this, the computer source code and methodologies used to crunch that data too'

What about who pays for it, that published as well ?

I could point to a bit of Ancient Greek writing on mans ability to delude himself and fellow human. Man will continue to delude no matter what.

No escaping this to mislead and delude :



The important thing for humans is that it was exposed .

Its my opinion that if promising results come out of the fusion tests in the next few years that's what needs to be concentrated on.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

#2

The link is not unsuitable to fusion energy and fusion energy to the climate change debate is very relevant : -

'The MPs want openness to be the watchword now'

That's a bunch of British MPs, right? Either barely qualified or often the best money, or the promise of a deal, can buy, right?

'The committee blamed the university, not the CRU, for "mishandling" of FoI requests.'

I was still trying to marry 'reprehensible behaviour' of an outfit with 'a clean bill of health' for its head, until I remembered the committee's composition. In fact I think they want him 'back on doing the job' asap, doubtless having learned a few lessons. Like don't get caught. I am sure they had tips.

Look at the rest!

'Labour MP Graham Stringer did not sign off the report. He said the committee had gone beyond its remit' It can hardly be party political then. Why did he say this?

And he'd wanted them to go further by supporting his call for a "reputable scientist" sceptical of anthropogenic climate change to sit on the panels of the two other inquiries into email controversy currently underway. The committee rejected this.Why would they?

The MPs acknowledge throughout their report that they have had to rush through this inquiry, with no time to explore all of the questions that they might have wished to. So... as flawed as the very thing they were 'investigating', and hence as much real value, save for providing some headlines to 'carry on, nothing to see here'. And folk wonder where the trust has gone (no pun intended. Well.. with more and more exposes of the affiliations of committee members, pension pots and 'objective' analysts in some media empires, one has to wonder on the conflicts of interest that might taint reporting and editorial).

A neat ending then, if...

Well no actually, not even. But then, i suppose it depends who is telling and who still feels they might be asked.

Dear Mr Rippon,

It is not only "Climategate" but also the Iceland Volcano that will be good for 鈥渟cience鈥�. I wrote previously asking when the 91热爆 would do a programme on the politics of disaster planning. There have been various examples of risk-averse planning by bureaucracy in the last decade and the over-reaction to the Iceland volcano is another example of health and safety bureaucracy out of control. We have been scared into believing that to fly would be madness. This is part of a long series of government over-reactions that have included the issue of climate change.

Over the past few days we have been led to believe that grounding all planes is inevitable. What we are witnessing is a policy drawn up by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and then interpreted and enforced by the UK鈥檚 National Air Traffic Service (NATS). And that interpretation requires some scrutiny. In September 2009 the ICAO published their 鈥楥ontingency plan for handling traffic in the event of volcanic ash penetrating the airspace of North Atlantic Region鈥�. The guidelines are highly detailed though they make no distinction at all between major or relatively modest eruptions. Nor do they take into account the dilution effect as the cloud spreads from the original point. The only reference is to generic dust clouds, without any attempt to carry out a risk assessment. Using as its model the largest and most dangerous of Icelandic volcanoes, the Katla volcano, it offered a series of procedures for monitoring and tracking volcano ash clouds and 鈥榓dvice鈥� to be given to airlines in the event of a volcano eruption. This current eruption is a relatively modest affair 鈥� certainly not at all in the league of Katla. Yet it is worth noting that for even the most serious of foreseen eruptions the plan issued by the IOCA involved re-routing aircraft round, or under, dust plumes.
The rationale for keeping us grounded is an economic equation rather than simple personal safety. To fly beneath the cloud until clear of it would mean burning more fuel. But not flying at all is surely burning money more swiftly. Low-flying to simply avoid the danger of ash being sucked into the jet engines is a temporary solution gaining currency on professional pilot鈥檚 forum Pprune. One pilot writing there yesterday pointed out: 鈥楾he chances of it even appearing at puddle jumper altitudes is negligible鈥�. Steve Wood, Chief Pilot at Sussex and Surrey Air Ambulance, yesterday described the measures being taken as 鈥榓 complete overreaction鈥�.
Modern jet aircraft engines are amazingly robust. And indeed they must be so. They have to face not only the hazards of bird strikes, but rain, hail and even salt spray on take-off from coastal airports. All of which can potentially wreak havoc on engines. Furthermore, sand is a common hazard from dust storms and from desert airfields. Some aircraft are better equipped than others to deal with high-dust conditions, and consultation with aircraft and engine manufacturers might have enabled more precise restrictions to be imposed, rather than a blanket ban.
But a spokesman for NATS admitted: 鈥榃e don鈥檛 really deal with particular manufacturers.鈥� They were more concerned with 鈥榓pplying the international regulations鈥� rather than working on a specific plane-by-plane, make-by-make basis. The blanket ban under clear blue skies and glorious sunshine is making some wonder whether this 鈥榦ne-size-fits-all鈥� regulation is appropriate to a situation that the regulations did not foresee.
And there will be many among the 200,000 Britons currently stranded abroad, who would be quite happy to take the risk. In the final analysis, despite the scares, no one has actually been killed in a volcano incident 鈥� something which cannot be said for the much more hazardous drive to the airport.
Large amounts were spent by government on dealing with the millennium bug, a threat to computers that never materialised. Governments have recently spent large amounts preparing for an attack of deadly Asian bird flu, only to find that an unexpected pandemic has arrived in the form of a relatively mild Mexican swine flu. Planning for Asian flu involved an extensive campaign of public health information at airports etc. The greatest disaster of recent times that never materialised was the Iraqi threat of weapons of mass destruction. Such weapons systems never existed. In the U.K. fears over BSE and foot and mouth disease amongst cattle have lead to the national herds and flocks being slaughtered twice over. It is in this context of excessive risk-aversion, that government鈥檚 response to climate changes is best considered.
Is it not time for Newsnight to concentrate properly on such political and bureaucratic responses to science?

VOLCANOS AND CLIMATE CHANGE.
It all sounds awfully like the climate change dispute. Motto of the story: A computer model is only as good as the people in control of the model.
A Lufthansa spokesman said: 鈥淲e found no damage to the engines, fuselage or cockpit windows. This is why we are urging the aviation authorities to run more test flights rather than relying on computer models.鈥� Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus, the Secretary General of the Association of European Airlines, said: 鈥淰erification flights undertaken by several of our airlines have revealed no irregularities at all; this confirms our requirement that other options should be deployed to determine genuine risk鈥�.

Keith Bill, a spokesman for the pilots union BALPA, challenged Nats to prove that they have taken advice from counterparts around the world who have greater experience of ash clouds caused by volcano eruptions.

Jo Gillespie, an aviation safety expert, said: 鈥淲ithout having the data to back up the decision this looks like an overreaction and is hugely damaging to the already suffering airline industry.鈥�

Ms. Watts, please get real about the bureaucrats. They make a living from exaggerating risk. The taxpayer pays. There is always a direct conflict of interest.

False excuses and Pass-the-Parcel.

It is British Bureaucrats who are to blame. The ash hit UK airspace first and Heathrow is the largest of all European airports. They started the fiasco with a decision that was followed by other national authorities. They will all try to blame 鈥淓urope鈥� now.

Lord Adonis claims that:
1. The government was following international rules. NO. This was a British decision to apply rules in a way that is contrary to the rules in USA and Asia.
2. The government was following the best scientific advice. NO. The scientists give information only. The government bureaucracy decides and advises.
3. The government is discussing matters with manufacturers. NO. Test flights and discussions with plane-makers should happen before bans and safety flights are introduced, not afterwards, in haste and during a crisis.

Lord Adonis knows nothing bout engine technology. He and his predecessors are putty in the hands of bureaucrats. He has been 鈥淵es-Ministered鈥�.

THE NOT SO OMNISCIENT UK MET OFFICE.
If they can be wrong about a volcano, the UK met office can be wrong about climate change. Weather is notoriously difficult to predict. It is one of the original sources for chaos theory.
Matthias Ruete, the Commission鈥檚 director general of transport, criticised national air traffic authorities for relying on a single source of scientific evidence. The Met Office鈥檚 London Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre (VAAC) provided the volcanic ash warning last week, triggering the European ban, via Eurocontrol, the Brussels based air traffic control centre.

鈥淭he science behind the model we are running at the moment is based on certain assumptions where we do not have clear scientific evidence,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 even know what density the cloud should be in order to affect jet engines. We have a model that runs on mathematical projections鈥t is probability rather than actual things happening.鈥�
Mr Ruete revealed that the Commission was forced yesterday to intervene with national authorities to 鈥渦nblock the mess鈥� and to allow airlines to fly test flights to check the VAAC data.
Under the European system, national and European authorities are compelled to act on the VAAC鈥檚 advice, even if it is limited to mathematical modelling.
鈥淚f you had the situation across the Atlantic, the advice would probably be 鈥榙on鈥檛 fly over the volcano otherwise it鈥檚 up to you,鈥� he said.
鈥淭he US model is not less safe, you just have to look at the statistics.鈥�

CHIEF EXCUSE-MAKER.
Meanwhile, Gordon Brown described the situation as a "European problem" requiring a "European solution".

Health and Safety Cover up.
A spokesman for BAA, which operates Heathrow, said it would do everything possible to "get people moving".

So what really happened?

The government bureaucrats introduced a ban without first establishing proper tolerance levels for engines flying through ash cloud. Government failed to carry out research in other parts of the world where volcanic events are common. Now the bureaucrats try to blame the the manufacturers for delay.
The CAA said: "Manufacturers have now agreed increased tolerance levels in low ash density areas...The major barrier to resuming flight has been understanding tolerance levels of aircraft to ash鈥�."
Lord Adonis said safety was the "paramount concern" but research into the effects of the volcanic ash had led to a "better" understanding of the implications.
In truth, there has been no new scientific research. Proper judgement with regard to risk and economic cost has never been exercised

Swine flu, BSE, climate change, foot and mouth鈥�.
Is it not time for the 91热爆 to expose excessive health and safety/bureaucratic measures?

THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND.


Lord Adonis is, presumably, responsible for appointing the CAA. The CAA鈥檚 two most senior figures have little experience in the aviation industry: its chairman Dame Deirdre Hutton, once described as 鈥渢he great quango-hopper鈥�, was chairman of the Food Standards Agency until last year, while its chief executive, Andrew Haines, ran First Great Western trains before taking up his current 拢300,000-a-year post last year.


The CAA never did proper research prior to the volcanic eruption and did not know what kind of research was required. Inter-national rules were applied without foresight and without regard to what other countries do.


Mr Haines said: "We weren't able to open the air space any earlier; we had no evidence to justify doing so.


The threshold of safety 鈥� a figure of 0.002g of ash passing through a jet engine per second 鈥� was finally agreed on Tuesday after extensive test flights, with Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney and Airbus confirming the figure over the course of the afternoon.

Health and Safety Fiasco: Volcaneos, Climate Change, Swine flu etc. etc.

"Settled Science" by Gordon Brown??

Meanwhile the RAF's Typhoon Eurofighters were given the all clear after tests showed volcanic ash found in engines caused no damage.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) received further assurances on British air safety from military chiefs as the 拢69 million jets were given the green light to take off again after being temporarily grounded.
The RAF's discovery of ash in engines during post-flight inspections on Wednesday led to checks of the entire fleet at RAF Coningsby yesterday.
It came just days after UK skies were reopened following an Icelandic volcanic ash cloud which halted all flights over the UK for almost a week.
An RAF spokesman said they were all given clearance to fly.
He said: 'There was no damage found to any of the jets.
'We have spoken to both the CAA and Rolls-Royce to say there was no damage. There was just a little bit of dust found on one of the jets and in the engine air intakes.'

Computers and Climate change: Can we trust them?
鈥溾��.Within two days, the amount of ash over northern Europe was at barely one per cent of the official danger level. But the authorities were locked by international rules into a rigid bureaucratic system, based on a computer model, which gave them no alternative but to close down air traffic for days longer than was justified. The real flaw in the system was that it made no provision for testing that crude computer model against actual real-life data, which could have shown that the computer was vastly exaggerating the risk.
Responsibility for responding to the Icelandic eruption lay with a bewildering hierarchy of national and international authorities, starting at the top with a UN body, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), working down through the European Commission and Eurocontrol (which is not part of the EU), to national agencies, such as our own Civil Aviation Authority, the National Air Traffic Service and, last but not least, the UK Met Office, owners of the relevant computer model.
Under guidelines issued by the ICAO last September, as soon as the Met Office's computer simulation of air flows around Europe indicates that a particular wind-borne dust cloud might theoretically be a danger, it automatically triggers an exclusion zone for air traffic. What the computer cannot show is the density of the dust, and whether it thus poses a genuine hazard...鈥�
For more on mis-management of foot and mouth by epidemiologists using computer models see: