A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change

[Ender]

This is not surprising. I wish that more people would quit denying the science behind climate change and accept it as the reality that it is.

Which science should we believe: that which says there was a hiatus or that which says there wasn’t? Which of the 50 scientific hypotheses that purport to explain the hiatus is the one we should accept? How far from reality can a model’s projections be and it still be considered a valid model? You assume the science explains way more than is actually known. It isn’t a question of accepting or rejecting science, but of understanding the difference between knowing and assuming.

Ender

 

[josie_L]

As I said before, Science as it is practiced is the best source of scientific truth. If you know of a better source, what is it?

But that’s not what I’m saying at all, i.e., Science is only as good as the scientists who utilize it, hence, Science in and of itself is the vehicle used by scientists, corrupt or otherwise (and you know they exist, right) to establish their truths, but it is not Science which is corrupt.

 

[josie_L]

The way scientists think!? That’s just an odd statement. Scientists are not so easily grouped. They can be extremely inconsistent and irrational, motivated by politics religion, ideology, and yes, even superstition as much as the rest of the world.

That you think it’s a special group that others can relate to or don’t belong to the club is playing into one stereotype of science and scientists. The prideful worship of ones own knowledge. And the egoism that science seems to attract in people.

One of the best scientists I’ve ever known wouldn’t hire someone if they were a tiger in the Chinese zodiac. Also, refused to let any menstrating woman near any experiments…
Brilliant. But also not brilliant…

It’s like Saint John Paul II said:

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

 

[josie_L]

Why should anyone trust your references to Climategate more than mine? Do you deny that
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct ?

You used Wikipedia as your source, i.e., anyone can edit Wikipedia pages/content.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You used Wikipedia as your source, i.e., anyone can edit Wikipedia pages/content.

Which is exactly why it is more trustworthy than pages only one biased person can edit.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But that’s not what I’m saying at all, i.e., Science is only as good as the scientists who utilize it, hence, Science in and of itself is the vehicle used by scientists, corrupt or otherwise (and you know they exist, right) to establish their truths, but it is not Science which is corrupt.

I know what you are saying. You are saying that Science can be corrupt. But what alternative is there for determining scientific truth, other than Science? i.e. it may have the potential for being corrupt, but alternatives are even more likely to be corrupt. So as “bad” as it is, Science is still our best bet for determining scientific truth.

 

[josie_L]

Which is exactly why it is more trustworthy than pages only one biased person can edit.

No, Wikipedia is not very reliable at all, as people will continuously edit said pages to suit their purposes, heck, even the very individuals who are implicated in Climate Gate can edit the pages of Wikipedia regarding Climate Gate.

 

[josie_L]

I know what you are saying. You are saying that Science can be corrupt. But what alternative is there for determining scientific truth, other than Science? i.e. it may have the potential for being corrupt, but alternatives are even more likely to be corrupt. So as “bad” as it is, Science is still our best bet for determining scientific truth.

Good objective scientists is our best bet for determining scientific truth.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Good objective scientists is our best bet for determining scientific truth.

And exactly how did you come to decide that the scientists working on climate and concluding AGW are not good or objective?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, Wikipedia is not very reliable at all, as people will continuously edit said pages to suit their purposes, heck, even the very individuals who are implicated in Climate Gate can edit the pages of Wikipedia regarding Climate Gate.

In this case the facts in the Wikipedia article are easily checked. If you think someone “made up” the eight different committees that found no evidence of fraud or scientific conduct, that would be easy to verify. In fact they are:

1. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK);
2. Independent Climate Change Review (UK);
3. International Science Assessment Panel Archived 9 May 2013 (UK);
4. Pennsylvania State University first panel Archived 25 September 2010;
5. and second panel Archived 30 January 2012 (US);
6. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US);
7. Department of Commerce (US);
8. National Science Foundation (US)

This is hardly the work of a few people intent on “suiting their purposes”

 

[josie_L]

And exactly how did you come to decide that the scientists working on climate and concluding AGW are not good or objective?

Oh, I’m not making that wholesale assumption, however, I am predicating this on the many many many failed climate predictions:

FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
   Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006

---

1. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”
   Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010.

---

1. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

---

1. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.”
   Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007

---

1. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.”
   Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.

---

1. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
   Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

---

1. “The more than ‘unusually ‘warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2°C’”
   Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment,
   Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007

---

1. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
   Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

1. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
   Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010

---

1. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
   Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

---

1. “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
   Spiegel, 1 April 2000

---

1. “In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60% of the species could die off by 2080.”

3Sat, 26 June 2003

---

1. “Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP.”
   IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann)

---

1. “Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”
   Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007

---

1. “Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be proportionately higher at higher elevations – and especially will have a powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions.”

and

“ The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”
Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002

---

1. “Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
   Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006

---

1. “Spring will begin in January starting in 2030.”
   Die Welt, 30 Sept 2010

---

wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/

There are just 107 failed climate predictions indicated on this blog/website alone (as of 2014).

 

[josie_L]

In this case the facts in the Wikipedia article are easily checked. If you think someone “made up” the eight different committees that found no evidence of fraud or scientific conduct, that would be easy to verify. In fact they are:

1. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK);
2. Independent Climate Change Review (UK);
3. International Science Assessment Panel Archived 9 May 2013 (UK);
4. Pennsylvania State University first panel Archived 25 September 2010;
5. and second panel Archived 30 January 2012 (US);
6. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US);
7. Department of Commerce (US);
8. National Science Foundation (US)

This is hardly the work of a few people intent on “suiting their purposes”

I can still manipulate the data by only referring to those committees and panels who did not find evidence and/or fraud against the people implicated in Climate Gate (Poptech already showed that with further research such panels and committees were viewed as being very biased in their procedures). Essentially what I’m saying is that people by omission can skew the results and/or facts of the story as well.

And the people doing this could very well be the people implicated in the matter, so Wikipedia is not the best source to use, as ANYONE AT ANY TIME can manipulate what is or isn’t put onto the pages in question.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Oh, I’m not making that wholesale assumption, however, I am predicating this on the many many many failed climate predictions:

There are just 107 failed climate predictions indicated on this blog/website alone (as of 2014).

I noticed you got your list of “failed” predictions from wattsupwiththat, a blog that is well-know for having a specific point of view they are promoting - namely that AGW climate science is wrong. You can get the impression from this hand-picked list of predictions that most predictions are wrong. Unless you start with an unbiased selection of predictions and then check them, any list of “failures” is inconclusive regarding the reliability of climate science. Among other things, these predictions are all by different people. The main prediction - that average global temperature will increase - has proven remarkably accurate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I can still manipulate the data by only referring to those committees and panels who did not find evidence and/or fraud against the people implicated in Climate Gate (Poptech already showed that with further research such panels and committees were viewed as being very biased in their procedures).

“Were viewed” by someone as being biased means nothing. By whom? Those 8 committees were quite diverse. It would be extraordinary if somehow they were all similarly corrupted. It would take more than the opinion of some to convince a reasonable person that they were all corrupt.

Essentially what I’m saying is that people by omission can skew the results and/or facts of the story as well.

…which, by the way, is exactly what your list of “failed” predictions does. It omits all the predictions that proved to be true.

And the people doing this could very well be the people implicated in the matter, so Wikipedia is not the best source to use, as ANYONE AT ANY TIME can manipulate what is or isn’t put onto the pages in question.

If Wikipedia is “not the best”, what is “the best?” or even a little bit better?

Just because it is theoretically possible to corrupt Wikipedia articles does not mean it is easy or likely.

 

[josie_L]

“Were viewed” by someone as being biased means nothing. By whom? Those 8 committees were quite diverse. It would be extraordinary if somehow they were all similarly corrupted. It would take more than the opinion of some to convince a reasonable person that they were all corrupt

Well, until I actually read other material concerning those 8 committees I will not take Wikipedia at its word.

…which, by the way, is exactly what your list of “failed” predictions does. It omits all the predictions that proved to be true.

Which predictions have been proved to be true, that we are cooling or that we are warming, I’m kind of confused as to what constitutes CLIMATE CHANGE nowadays, or rather CLIMATE DISRUPTION as it now referred to?

And should there be so many many failed climate predictions if the AGW theory is accurate, i.e., weren’t we supposed to be flooded, experiencing mild winters, no winters, significant temperature increases by now, as per the AGW theory? Wasn’t that what all the scare was about???

If Wikipedia is “not the best”, what is “the best?” or even a little bit better?

Just because it is theoretically possible to corrupt Wikipedia articles does not mean it is easy or likely.

Alright, use Wikipedia, but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

[Theo520]

The fundamental issue in this debate is whether the models are accurate, and they are not.
There is a complete disconnect between the models and reality.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Climate models versus climate reality

 

[Poptech]

In this case the facts in the Wikipedia article are easily checked.

How do you know if a Wikipedia page is correct when you look at it?

If you think someone “made up” the eight different committees that found no evidence of fraud or scientific conduct, that would be easy to verify. In fact they are:

1. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK);
2. Independent Climate Change Review (UK);
3. International Science Assessment Panel Archived 9 May 2013 (UK);
4. Pennsylvania State University first panel Archived 25 September 2010;
5. and second panel Archived 30 January 2012 (US);
6. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US);
7. Department of Commerce (US);
8. National Science Foundation (US)

This is hardly the work of a few people intent on “suiting their purposes”

Those are not eight different committees.

• The Environmental Protection Agency is not an independent committee but a U.S. government agency where the director was appointed by President Obama.
• The Inspector General of the Department of Commerce is not an independent committee and he later resigned amid growing scandals.
• The National Science Foundation is not an independent committee but a U.S. government agency where the director was appointed by President Obama.

The problems with the actual committees are addressed in this reports I provided.

 

[Poptech]

The Climategate Inquiries (PDF) (55 pgs) (The Global Warming Policy Foundation)

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (U.K.)

• Finding: Comments made by Phil Willis suggest that he was not a neutral chairman.
• Finding: With the general election looming, the scope of the Select Committee’s work was extremely limited.
• Finding: The Select Committee appears to have accepted that scientists can leave out important information about the reliability of their results when presenting findings to policymakers.
• Finding: The Select Committee appear to have been confused about the nature of the divergence problem and the Scientific Appraisal Panel failed to investigate the issue.
• Finding: The Select Committee did not consider the important issue of ad-hoc bodging of data by CRU scientists.
• Finding: The Committee did not consider the issue of cherrypicking of data despite having several examples put to them.
• Finding: The Committee appears to have exonerated Jones of the charge of fabrication without any evidence to justify such a conclusion.
• Finding: The Committee dismissed allegations of threats to journals on the basis of explanations provided by Jones. No attempt was made to obtain evidence from the journal editors themselves.
• Finding: The Committee failed to consider or publish a submission of evidence containing allegations of fraud.
• Finding: The Committee misunderstood Peiser’s evidence and failed to investigate Keenan’s fraud allegation made against Jones.
• Finding: The Select Committee does not appear to have investigated a serious allegation of a breach of scientific standards.
• Finding: Although the Committee are clear that the law of freedom of information was flouted, no attempt seems to have been made to identify the individuals responsible.
• Finding: Despite concerns that some of the appointed CCE Panel members were unsuitable, the Committee accepted Russell’s vague expressions of hope that they would act in an objective fashion.

Science Assessment Panel (U.K.)

• Finding: The Committee chairman refused to reveal how decisions had been reached.
• Finding: The Panel appears to have been deliberately selected to have a majority who would not address the review objectively and to exclude sceptical views entirely.
• Finding: UEA appointed Oxburgh as chairman of the Panel in the full knowledge that he had conflicts of interest.
• Finding: Kerry Emanuel appeared to have prejudged the inquiry findings.
• Finding: UEA restricted the scope of the Oxburgh inquiry to published papers only, avoiding the serious allegations related to the IPCC activities of CRU staff.
• Finding: The scope was further restricted to the conduct of the scientists. UEA had led the Science and Technology Committee members to believe that the quality of CRU’s scientific work would be re-assessed. The Committee’s chairman, Phil Willis, felt that UEA had misled them.
• Finding: The papers examined by the Panel were selected by UEA and appear to have been cleared with Jones himself.
• Finding: Lord Oxburgh’s report misled the public by stating that the papers were chosen ‘on the advice of the Royal Society’.
• Finding: Lord Rees said that he had consulted with experts about the papers. In fact he had only discussed them with Sir Brian Hoskins, who had said he did not know CRU’s work.
• Finding: Many of the papers examined were obscure and had not been questioned by critics. Many of the papers that had been criticised were not examined.
• Finding: Contrary to the strong recommendation from the Science and Technology Committee, the inquiry did not carry out its interviews in public, nor did it make notes, recordings or transcripts of interviews.
• Finding: The Oxburgh Panel commended CRU for continuously updating their chronologies, but failed to report on CRU’s failure to update the Polar Urals chronology, an issue that had long concerned critics.
• Finding: The Panel’s conclusions that criticisms of CRU were ‘selective’ and ‘uncharitable’ appear to be baseless since there is no record of these criticisms having been examined.
• Finding: The Panel do not appear to have examined Keenan’s serious allegation.
• Finding: The Panel upheld one of the chief complaints of the IPCC’s critics, noting that the IPCC report overlooked caveats and statements of uncertainty in the scientific literature. It is important to note however, that the panel failed to note the role CRU scientists had in downplaying uncertainty in the IPCC reports.
• Finding: At least one panellist had serious concerns over CRU science and how it was used in the IPCC reports. There was no word of these concerns in the Oxburgh Panel report.

…]

 

[Poptech]

…]

Independent Climate Change Email Review (U.K.)

• Finding: Several members of the Panel were unsuited to be panellists, having strong connections to UEA or having a tendency to make alarmist statements on the impact of manmade global warming.
• Finding: No known critic of CRU was on the Panel.
• Finding: Only two interviews were held with key CRU staff. The majority of the Panel, including the chairman, Sir Muir Russell, did not attend.
• Finding: No interviews were held with critics of the CRU.
• Finding: The Panel correctly noted that hiding the divergence problem in the WMO report was misleading but failed to investigate similar issues in the IPCC reports.
• Finding: The Panel appear to have exonerated CRU staff of undermining the peer review process without any evidence beyond unrecorded statements from Phil Jones. The Panel themselves acknowledge that such uncorroborated testimony is inadequate.
• Finding: The possibility of improper approaches having been made to another journal was not investigated.
• Finding: The Panel ignored the recommendation of their own advisor that they investigate the possibility that CRU staff had breached the confidentiality of the peer review process.
• Finding: No substantive defence against McKitrick’s allegation of fabrication has been made.
• Finding: The Panel misunderstood the nature of the IPCC process, almost certainly affecting their conclusions as a result.
• Finding: The Panel refused to publish the evidence of one of the most important witnesses.
• Finding: The Panel did not address the question of whether Briffa chose to ignore the problems with the Wahl and Ammann paper or to break the IPCC rules by using a preliminary version.
• Finding: The Panel did not publish David Holland’s evidence that the change to the IPCC timetables was unauthorised and did not mention it in the report.
• Finding: The Panel did not discuss strong third party evidence that Briffa acted outside IPCC rules, preferring to rely on submissions from scientists at the centre of the allegations.
• Finding: The Panel failed to ask Jones whether he had deleted emails, but said they had not seen anything to suggest he had, despite having evidence to the contrary.
• Finding: The Panel failed to consider important evidence of breaches of Freedom of Information legislation.
• Finding: The Panel failed to investigate allegations of cherrypicking.
• Finding: It is not possible to question the Panel’s findings on the issue of ‘bodging’ since they rely on unpublished research.

Pennsylvania State University (U.S.)

• Finding: By failing to interview Mann’s chief critics, the inquiry failed to notice clear falsehoods in the evidence presented to them.

 

[josie_L]

I noticed you got your list of “failed” predictions from wattsupwiththat, a blog that is well-know for having a specific point of view they are promoting - namely that AGW climate science is wrong. You can get the impression from this hand-picked list of predictions that most predictions are wrong. Unless you start with an unbiased selection of predictions and then check them, any list of “failures” is inconclusive regarding the reliability of climate science. Among other things, these predictions are all by different people. The main prediction - that average global temperature will increase - has proven remarkably accurate.

It’s been given a lot of accolades, but nevertheless, I could have chosen from many other websites showing how many failed climate predictions there are.

That being said, I have a hard time getting all warmed up inside by the fact that AGW scientists’ predictions are coming true. . . etc., if it is getting warmer (and we’ve been hearing this for a long time now, possibly two decades), how does this really affect us, i.e., the earth has been known to increase and decrease in temperature over millions of years now.