bobheck
Disco still sucks.
Sure, if you're going to guess, why not make it really scary. That's the whole point. Guessing. They might as well be reading tea leaves. What a joke.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Free episodes:
Sure, if you're going to guess, why not make it really scary. That's the whole point. Guessing. They might as well be reading tea leaves. What a joke.
Did you read the Vermeer/Rahmsdorf paper Bob? I mean there is hard science there, right? The paper is from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science and edited by William Clark of Harvard (William Clark, Harvey Brooks professor of international science, public policy and human development, is an ecologist who co-directs the Sustainability Science Program at the Center for International Development. )
Do you -really- believe the research results are simply "guessing" Bob, reading "teas leaves"? Or would you call it an educated guess? Just curious.
Discussion: Implications for the Future
If our method presents a reasonable approximation of the future sea-level response to global warming, then for a given emission scenario sea level will rise approximately three times as much by 2100 as the projections (excluding rapid ice flow dynamics) of the IPCC AR4 (2) have suggested. Even for the lowest emission scenario (B1), sea-level rise is then likely to be 1 m; for the highest, it may even come closer to 2 m. Uncertainties remain, however. While the thermal expansion response has been tested on simulated data, it is less clear whether the information contained in the 120 years of observational data about the ice response is sufficient to describe the future ice-melt contribution out to the year 2100. The key question then is: will the ice-melt response observed so far, as captured in our dual model, overestimate or underestimate future sea-level rise? On one hand, the surface area of mountain glaciers vulnerable to melting will decrease in future as glaciers disappear. However, more ice higher up in mountains and particularly the big continental ice sheets will increasingly become subject to melting as temperatures warm.
The net effect, an increasing or decreasing surface area subject to melting, is not easily determined without detailed regional studies. In addition, highly nonlinear responses of ice flow may become increasingly important during the 21st century. These are likely to make our linear approach an underestimate. Therefore, we have to entertain the possibility that sea level could rise faster still than suggested by the simple projection based on Eq. 2.
How much faster? Pfeffer et al. (25) provided an independent estimate of maximum ice discharge based on geographic constraints on ice flow; they concluded that sea-level rise in the 21st century is very unlikely to exceed 200 cm. If this estimate is correct, a nonlinear dynamical ice-sheet response may not change our estimate upward by very much. To limit global sea-level rise to a maximum of 1 m in the long run (i.e., beyond 2100), as proposed recently as a policy goal (26), deep emissions reductions will be required. Likely they would have to be deeper than those needed to limit global warming to 2 °C, the policy goal now supported by many countries. Our analysis further suggests that emissions reductions need to come early in this century to be effective.
Software code accompanying this article is available (SI Sea-Level Code).
bobheck
Disco still sucks.
Science has had enough.
Actually I did Jonah. But you seem to have glossed over sentences such as these within that report:
But sea-level changes cannot yet be predicted
with confidence using models based on physical processes,
because the dynamics of ice sheets and glaciers and to a lesser
extent that of oceanic heat uptake is not sufficiently understood.
Hmm OK so we need to just stop here. But wait, let's guess anyway...So, they conjure up a witches brew of equations and scenarios based on half-understood forces and claim...
These approaches are based on using an observable that climate
models actually can predict with confidence, namely global mean
temperature, and establish with the help of observational data
how global mean temperature is linked to sea level.
That is a hell of an assumption -- that climate models can actually predict with confidence anything
If our method presents a reasonable approximation of the future
sea-level response to global warming, then for a given emission
scenario sea level will rise approximately three times as much by
2100 as the projections (excluding rapid ice flow dynamics) of the
IPCC AR4 (2) have suggested.
I repeat -- tea leaves. As a matter of fact, tea leaves may prove more accurate.
-------------
Part of the scientific method, especially with computational approaches, requires that those computations produce consistent results repeatedly.
In the area of climate science, we simply do not have anything like that. We don't even have reliable data points (unmodified data) to start with. All we have are inferred data from indirect references to the actual temperature data (e.g. - ice cores, tree rings, etc...)
So, the REASONABLE thing to do is to start gathering reliable data right now and start testing these formulae that the scientists are throwing out. After 100 or 200 years (actually that should be longer because the climate changes so slowly), we will have an idea of which ones merit further refinement. After that, then science can begin the talk of climate science.
What problem do you have with that Jonah? That is a reasonable, scientific approach. We don't need a knee-jerk reaction. Doing anything now is patently alarmist.
Actually I did Jonah. But you seem to have glossed over sentences such as these within that report:
But sea-level changes cannot yet be predicted
with confidence using models based on physical processes,
because the dynamics of ice sheets and glaciers and to a lesser
extent that of oceanic heat uptake is not sufficiently understood.
Hmm OK so we need to just stop here. But wait, let's guess anyway...So, they conjure up a witches brew of equations and scenarios based on half-understood forces and claim...
These approaches are based on using an observable that climate
models actually can predict with confidence, namely global mean
temperature, and establish with the help of observational data
how global mean temperature is linked to sea level.
That is a hell of an assumption -- that climate models can actually predict with confidence anything
If our method presents a reasonable approximation of the future
sea-level response to global warming, then for a given emission
scenario sea level will rise approximately three times as much by
2100 as the projections (excluding rapid ice flow dynamics) of the
IPCC AR4 (2) have suggested.
I repeat -- tea leaves. As a matter of fact, tea leaves may prove more accurate.
-------------
Part of the scientific method, especially with computational approaches, requires that those computations produce consistent results repeatedly.
In the area of climate science, we simply do not have anything like that. We don't even have reliable data points (unmodified data) to start with. All we have are inferred data from indirect references to the actual temperature data (e.g. - ice cores, tree rings, etc...)
So, the REASONABLE thing to do is to start gathering reliable data right now and start testing these formulae that the scientists are throwing out. After 100 or 200 years (actually that should be longer because the climate changes so slowly), we will have an idea of which ones merit further refinement. After that, then science can begin the talk of climate science.
What problem do you have with that Jonah? That is a reasonable, scientific approach. We don't need a knee-jerk reaction. Doing anything now is patently alarmist.
bobheck
Disco still sucks.
This is really sad. I wish it were warmer ...
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/02/16/1483111/florida-cold-kills-nearly-200.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/02/16/1483111/florida-cold-kills-nearly-200.html
Schuyler
Misanthrope
I intended to post this earlier, but don't think I did. Computer glitch and all. Pretty self-explanatory.
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.
Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.
Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.
Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.
"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."
Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.
The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.
In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.
"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."
In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.
Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.
Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.
Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.
"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."
Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.
The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.
In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.
"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."
In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".
How do we know that scientists aren't wrong. Or, from most people on this thread's perspective, how do we know that they aren't decieving us.
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/resources/globalwarming/documents/oreskes-chapter-4.pdf
and the easy version:
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/resources/globalwarming/documents/oreskes-on-science-consenus.pdf
Read or watch at least one of these. Go on, I dare you. If you are interested in reasonable debate then you should if only to get a balance of both sides of the equation and then come up and then to make up your own mind. Maybe not as media friendly, perhaps a little boring compared to the alternative, but if you are serious about this subject, then you should at least listen to what Naomi Oreskes has to say.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Personally, I started on the AGW side of the issue. I forced everyone I knew to watch Al Gores POS movie. What an idiot I was.
bobheck
Disco still sucks.
New iPhone App features "Jonahspeak"
We don't.
So, with the current debate about AGW, start collecting reliable data now, safe guard the raw, unmodified data of temperatures, sea levels, glaciers, etc..., and then keep compiling data for a few hundred years, and in the future scientists will have actual data and not inferred values to make better determinations and possibly build models. For now, we just need to be good data collectors (something we have not been). Make no snap judgements now and no policy changes now as far as AGW is concerned. Just collect the data. That's all.
We don't.
So, with the current debate about AGW, start collecting reliable data now, safe guard the raw, unmodified data of temperatures, sea levels, glaciers, etc..., and then keep compiling data for a few hundred years, and in the future scientists will have actual data and not inferred values to make better determinations and possibly build models. For now, we just need to be good data collectors (something we have not been). Make no snap judgements now and no policy changes now as far as AGW is concerned. Just collect the data. That's all.
Rick Deckard
Paranormal Maven
New iPhone App features "Jonahspeak"
...and publish the raw data and any manipulations you've applied. Oh and when you're legally obliged to provide data via FOI requests, don't destroy it and pretend you're unable to locate it...
...in other words, we need transparency if we're gonna have any confidence in the conclusions, not f*cking 'cloak and dagger' evasiveness when asked to supply the raw data and calculations.
I don't see how anyone can have any faith in the current conclusions - the science has been shown to be fraudulent.
...and publish the raw data and any manipulations you've applied. Oh and when you're legally obliged to provide data via FOI requests, don't destroy it and pretend you're unable to locate it...
...in other words, we need transparency if we're gonna have any confidence in the conclusions, not f*cking 'cloak and dagger' evasiveness when asked to supply the raw data and calculations.
I don't see how anyone can have any faith in the current conclusions - the science has been shown to be fraudulent.
bobheck
Disco still sucks.
New iPhone App features "Jonahspeak"
Exactly!
(Oh, and Rick, I am stealing your signature about 10 types of people to use in my email signature -- that is just too cool not to use
)
Exactly!
(Oh, and Rick, I am stealing your signature about 10 types of people to use in my email signature -- that is just too cool not to use
)ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM
Whittingham
New iPhone App features "Jonahspeak"
G.W. is like a pop-off which is full of gas!
CIAO,
blowfish
G.W. is like a pop-off which is full of gas!
CIAO,
blowfish
P
pixelsmith
Guest
New iPhone App features "Jonahspeak"
What to say to a global warming alarmist
By MARK LANDSBAUM
2010-02-12 13:30:12
It has been tough to keep up with all the bad news for global warming alarmists. We're on the edge of our chair, waiting for the next shoe to drop. This has been an Imelda Marcos kind of season for shoe-dropping about global warming.
At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.
ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"
FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?
ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.
HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.
PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.
PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.
SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?
SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.
AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.
PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.
RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.
Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.
U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.
IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?
ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.
ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.
AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.
AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.
What to say to a global warming alarmist
By MARK LANDSBAUM
2010-02-12 13:30:12
It has been tough to keep up with all the bad news for global warming alarmists. We're on the edge of our chair, waiting for the next shoe to drop. This has been an Imelda Marcos kind of season for shoe-dropping about global warming.
At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.
ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"
FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?
ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.
HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.
PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.
PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.
SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?
SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.
AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.
PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.
RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.
Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.
U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.
IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?
ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.
ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.
AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.
AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.
Schuyler
Misanthrope
A 'Minority Report' done for the US Senate: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Issue_id=0f038c02-802a-23ad-4fec-b8bc71f1a6f8 and attached as a PDF (I think!). Pretty good summary of the issues including an analaysis of the CRU emails and also of the Harry Read Me text file. The emails are pretty tough to slog thorugh by themselves. Above (way above) I posted another analysis of them putting them into context, but I think this report actually does a better job.
bobheck
Disco still sucks.
Thank you Schuyler.
You know, with all of the areas of concern in that report, and they are copious, one the most important points is the discussion on page 72 about data sets. Pretty much says what we have been trumpeting all along, if the data set is corrupt, then all of the models, scenarios, determinations, etc..., that are based on that data set are meaningless.
There is no rush here. Start taking true, accurate, and verified data now. Give the scientists of 100 or 200 years from now something solid to work with, and advance true science that way.
Schuyler
Misanthrope
Yes, yes. Conor's repost of his anti-American propaganda again. I hope everyone realizes that the many Alarmists are American: Michael Mann, Hansen at NASA, Thomas Karl, Bradley, Hughes, etc. and many of the more successful skeptics are Canadian (McIntyre & McKitrick, who demolished the hockey stick), British (A.W. Montford, Bisoph Hill, Helen & Richard at EUReferendum, Lord Monckton, and even Australian (Joanne Nova). Further, the American media is still stonewalling the whole issue by refusing to report anything but alarmist tripe (The venerable (not) New York Times doesn't even acknowledge an issue.) while the British and Indian media are having a heyday by reporting it all. India has dropped out of the IPCC. Russia has called the whole thing off. China is skeptical, Australia is howling. The prime minister of the Netherlands is pissed.
But hey, blame America. It's just so convenient.
Update: 13 of 17 scientists hugely involved in the IPCC reports and mentioned in the minority US senate report listed above are American. I think you can safely say that the group pushing AGW alarmism is dominated by Americans.
And a nice brief report on the International Pack of Climate Crooks (IPCC)
But hey, blame America. It's just so convenient.
Update: 13 of 17 scientists hugely involved in the IPCC reports and mentioned in the minority US senate report listed above are American. I think you can safely say that the group pushing AGW alarmism is dominated by Americans.
And a nice brief report on the International Pack of Climate Crooks (IPCC)
bobheck
Disco still sucks.
Aww, yes, the alarmist mentality...
Attachments
dyingsun
Paranormal Adept
I only blame you for Iraq, not global warming
Just read the right sources and you come to the same conclusion if your mind isn't made up about the global warming debate already.Schuyler showed him.Yep, and the videos I posted here are all from America. So, I am now an anti-American. Hmmmm. You love your labels! What I meant is that lobbyist groups have infiltrated the media and caused delay on a global issue. Now, produce all the non-peer reviewed propaganda you want. Rile against the fake consensus designed to (I presume this is why your pissed off) create a one world government and take away all your freedoms. Wow. I am reminded of disinformation agents. This is probably the nearest thing your going to get.
This is EXACTLY the sort of thing that you people are always going on about - secret manipulation. THAT is why (let me rephrase what I said earlier, lest I get labelled) SOME Americans are the laughing stock of the rest of the world.
Schuyler
Misanthrope
This is actually kind of fun. It's a 5 minute talk on climate change featuring Mojib Latif, an IPCC member and prominent GERMAN climate scientist who basically says the public has been deceived. It's in German, but you really don't need to speak German to understand what he says or the conclusions of the report.
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/haup...#/beitrag/video/974276/Pannen-im-IPCC-Bericht
And in related news, in a poll conducted in the UNITED KINGDOM, only one on 5 citizens believes that global warming is man made. The article suggests this is just terrible, and at the end a 'scientist' says, 'We know CO2 causes global warming; that's basic physics.' Well, no, it's not, actually. Global warming causes CO2 outgassing from the oceans. Just like Al Gore, this guy gets it wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/23/british-public-belief-climate-poll
And a nice article from the INDIAN Hindustan Times:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/The-end-is-not-near/H1-Article1-505317.aspx
Just a paragraph from it:
"In this enterprise, the group was aided not only by environmental zealots, anti-technology Luddites, Utopian one-worlders, and population-control fanatics, but also by bureaucrats, businesses, brokers and bankers, who had learned how to game the system and profit from government grants and subsidies for exotic schemes to produce ‘carbon-free’ energy and from the trading of carbon permits. Hundreds of billions have already been wasted — most of this in transfers of tax revenues to a favoured few."
And a post proving Al Gore wrecked the entire Earth:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/19/how-al-gore-wrecked-planet-earth/
And here's a little expose article shopwing how many milliions of dollars (and Euros) Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, has made off of climate change 'grants,' including one to study the non-melting Himalayan glaciers. The conflict of interest here os huge.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
But hey! Pachauri has his own golf course on public land soaking up zillions of gallons of water in a place that already has water issues:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/...ater-hog-in-a-city-desparate-for-fresh-water/
You can't make this stuff up!
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/haup...#/beitrag/video/974276/Pannen-im-IPCC-Bericht
And in related news, in a poll conducted in the UNITED KINGDOM, only one on 5 citizens believes that global warming is man made. The article suggests this is just terrible, and at the end a 'scientist' says, 'We know CO2 causes global warming; that's basic physics.' Well, no, it's not, actually. Global warming causes CO2 outgassing from the oceans. Just like Al Gore, this guy gets it wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/23/british-public-belief-climate-poll
And a nice article from the INDIAN Hindustan Times:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/The-end-is-not-near/H1-Article1-505317.aspx
Just a paragraph from it:
"In this enterprise, the group was aided not only by environmental zealots, anti-technology Luddites, Utopian one-worlders, and population-control fanatics, but also by bureaucrats, businesses, brokers and bankers, who had learned how to game the system and profit from government grants and subsidies for exotic schemes to produce ‘carbon-free’ energy and from the trading of carbon permits. Hundreds of billions have already been wasted — most of this in transfers of tax revenues to a favoured few."
And a post proving Al Gore wrecked the entire Earth:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/19/how-al-gore-wrecked-planet-earth/
And here's a little expose article shopwing how many milliions of dollars (and Euros) Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, has made off of climate change 'grants,' including one to study the non-melting Himalayan glaciers. The conflict of interest here os huge.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
But hey! Pachauri has his own golf course on public land soaking up zillions of gallons of water in a place that already has water issues:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/...ater-hog-in-a-city-desparate-for-fresh-water/
You can't make this stuff up!
P
pixelsmith
Guest
i have yet to see any of these AGW guys show any current science showing run away warming due to man made CO2 emissions, yet they blather on and on about everything BUT the science.