Catholicism and Climate Change

[kimmielittle]

I was asked here, “why I didn’t Include the energy of the train”.

                 Originally Posted by **JasonSB**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7257627#post7257627)                 
             *

. Therefore*, if the train was travelling at exactly 2 km/h below the speed of light, and the same person was to walk at exactly 4 km/h from the back of the train to the front of the train, they must be travelling at exactly 2 km/h above the speed of light, comprehensively proving that all physicists are stupid and that the Theory of Relativity can be overturned by a “kid”.

It is not the train that is said to be traveling at exactly 2 km/h above the speed of light.

IT is the person walking who must be traveling at the speed of light or rather exactly 2 km/h above the speed of light.

Within the problem, as stated, the person isn’t adding to the acceleration of the train. The train is stated as below the speed of light.

There is no problem with the hypothetical speed of the train.

 

[kimmielittle]

IMO, Authoritarian scientists fail to admit or learn from their past mistakes.

Once again, evil Exon is stated to be funding skeptical scientists. Yet, no answer to my questions.

Basically put, my question remains: “What is the difference between oil funding of skeptical scientist and CRU and AGW scientists?”

Return to the index page | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Mike Hulme m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Simon.Shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: industrial and commercial contacts
Date: Mon Jan 10 17:01:32 2000

Simon,

I have talked with Tim O’Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:

• Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
• Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International
• Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
• ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me.

And then Simon Gerrard here in our Risk Unit suggested the following personal contacts:

• ??, someone senior at AMEC Engineering in Yarmouth (involved with North Sea industry and wind energy)
• Richard Powell, Director of the East of England Development Board

You can add these to your list and I can ensure that Tim and Simon feed the right material through once finalised.

I will phone tomorrow re. the texts.

Cheers,

Mike

At 20:30 07/01/00 BST, you wrote:

dear colleagues

re: List of Industrial and Commercial Contacts to Elicit Support
from for the Tyndall Centre

This is the list so far. Our contact person is given in brackets
afterwards. There is some discussion on whether we
should restict ourselves to board level contacts - hence Dlugolecki
is not board level but highly knowledgeable about climate change.
I think people such as that, who are well known for their climate
change interests, are worth writing to for support. There may be
less value in writing to lesser known personnel at a non-board level.

SPRU has offered to elicit support from their energy programme
sponsors which will help beef things up. (Frans: is the Alsthom
contact the same as Nick Jenkin’s below? Also, do you have a BP
Amoco contact? The name I’ve come up with is Paul Rutter, chief
engineer, but he is not a personal contact]

We could probably do with some more names from the financial sector.
Does anyone know any investment bankers?

Please send additional names as quickly as possible so we can
finalise the list.

I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting
support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be
used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person
in brackets).

Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick
Jenkins]
Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John
Shepherd]
Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director, Severn-Trent Water
[Mike Hulme]
Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director, Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
Mr Brian Ford, Director of Quality, United Utilities plc [Simon
Shackley]
Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, CGU [Jean Palutikof]
Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]

Possibles:
Mr John Loughhead, Technology Director ALSTOM [Nick Jenkins]
Mr Edward Hyams, Managing Director Eastern Generation [Nick
Jenkins]
Dr David Parry, Director Power Technology Centre, Powergen
[Nick Jenkins]
Mike Townsend, Director, The Woodland Trust [Melvin
Cannell]
Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]

With kind regards

Simon Shackley

What is the difference between ESSO and EXON?

What is the difference between EXON’s money and BP’s or SHELL’s who fund CRU?

 

[kimmielittle]

I’ve been told basically, that IPCC doesn’t use appeal to authority fallacy.

YET:

"People can have confidence in the IPCC’s conclusions…Given that it is all on the basis of **peer-reviewed ** literature." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008

I donno, it looks like one of many ] Appeal to authority made by IPCC’s leader to me.

 

[kimmielittle]

I’ve been told basically, IPCC isn’t deceitful.

YET:

"People can have confidence in the IPCC’s conclusions…Given that it is all on the basis of **peer-reviewed ** literature." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008

"The IPCC doesn’t do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2007

"This is based on ** peer-reviewed **literature. That’s the manner in which the IPCC functions. We don’t pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008 (click quote to go to YouTube video. Remarks begin at 1 minute, 15 seconds)

 

[kimmielittle]

Some NON EXISTENT "Newspaper" Articles within IPCC report

Marris, E., 2005: First tests show flood waters high in bacteria and lead. News@Nature, 437, 301-301.
Dey, P., 2006: Climate change devastating Latin America frogs. University of Alberta. www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=7247.
Butler, A., 2002: Tourism burned: visits to parks down drastically, even away from flames. Rocky Mountain News. July 15, 2002.

Kesmodel, D., 2002: Low and dry: Drought chokes off Durango rafting business. Rocky Mountain News, 25 June 2002.
Wilgoren, J. and K.R. Roane, 1999: Cold Showers, Rotting Food, the Lights, Then Dancing. New York Times, A1. July 8, 1999.
Welch, C., 2006: Sweeping change reshapes Arctic. The Seattle Times. Jan. 1 2006. [Accessed 12.02.07: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/

2002714404_arctic01main.html]
Stiger, R.W., 2001: Alaska DOT deals with permafrost
thaws. Better Roads. June, 30-31. [Accessed 12.02.07: http://obr.gcnpublishing.com/articles/brjun01c.htm]
Business Week, 2005: A Second Look at Katrina’s Cost. Business Week.
September 13, 2005. [Accessed 09.02.07: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?]
Associated Press, 2002: Rough year for rafters. September 3, 2002.
Colombia Trade News, 2006: Illegal crops damage Colombia’s environmental resources. Colombian Government Trade Bureau. coltrade.org/ about/envt_index.asp#top.
FAO, 2004b: La participación de las comunidades en la gestión forestal es decisiva para reducir los incendios (Involving local communities to prevent and control forest fires). FAO Newsroom. fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004 /48709/index.html.
FAO, 2005: Cattle ranching is encroaching on forests in Latin America. FAO Newsroom. fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/102924/index.html.
Environment News Service, 2002: Hungry Cambodians at the mercy of climate change. Phnom Penh, 26 November 2002. Accessed 16.05.07: ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2002/2002-11-26-02.asp.
Balint-Kurti, D., 2005: Tin trade fuels Congo War. News24, 07/03/2005. news24.com/News24/Africa/Features/0,2-11-37_1672558,00.html.
FAO, 2004: Locust crisis to hit northwest Africa again: situation deteriorating in the Sahel. FAO News Release, 17 September 2004. fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/50609/.
Bowen, N., 2002: Canary in a coalmine. Climbing News, 208, 90-97, 138-139.
Sparks, T.H., H. Heyen, O. Braslavska and E. Lehikoinen, 1999: Are European birds migrating earlier? BTO News, 223, 8.
Benedick, R., 2001: Striking a new deal on climate change. Science and Technology Online, Fall 2001. issues.org/18.1/benedick.html
Schelling, T.C., 2002: What makes greenhouse sense? Foreign Affairs, May/June COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2005)6 32. colorado.edu/economics/morey/4545/global/schelling-ghsense.pdf
Schelling, T.C., 1997: The cost of combating global warming, facing the tradeoffs. Foreign Affairs, November/December colorado.edu/Economics/morey/4545/global/schelling-cost.pdf
Cowan, J., E. Eidinow, Laura Likely, 2000: A scenario-planning process for the new millennium. Deeper News, 9(1).
The Economist, 2000: Sins of the secular missionaries. January 29, 2000.
Speth, J.G., 2002: Recycling Environmentalism. Foreign Policy, July/August, pp. 74-76. foreignpolicy.com/articles/2002/07/01/recycling_environmentalism
Shashank, J., 2004: Energy conservation in the industrial sector: A special report on energy conservation day. New Delhi, Economic Times.
Nippon Steel, 2002: Advanced technology of Nippon Steel contributes to ULSAB-AVC Program. Nippon Steel News, 295, September 2002.
Shorrock, T., 2002: Enron’s Asia misadventure. **Asia Times **29 January, accessed 02/07/07.
ISNA, 2004: From wood to coal in an effort to stop deforestation. **Inter Services news agency **(IPS), Rome, accessed 02/07/07.
IRIN, 2004: Angola: frustration as oil windfall spending neglects the poor. United Nations Integrated Regional Information Networks, accessed 02/07/07.
Nuclear News, 2005: WNA report forecasts three scenarios for nuclear’s growth. Nuclear News, November 2005: pp. 60-62, 69.

 

[kimmielittle]

On peer review deceit within IPCC report

PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE CLAIM
The chairman of the IPCC has declared repeatedly that the report is based solely on peer-reviewed literature. (This means research papers that have been submitted to an academic journal, scrutinized by anonymous referees, and frequently altered in order to qualify for publication. Although the peer-review process does not guarantee accuracy, the fact that research findings have undergone this process promotes a feeling of confidence.)
This Citizen Audit focused its attention on the peer-reviewed literature claim. A team of 43 volunteers from 12 countries examined the list of references at the end of each chapter. We sorted these references into two groups - articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals and other references. (Non-peer-reviewed material is often called “grey literature”.) Then we calculated the percentage of references that do, indeed, appear to be peer-reviewed.
In elementary schools in the United States, students are assigned grades ranging from an A to an F, based on the mark they’ve achieved out of 100 (see Wikipedia’s table here). Most parents would be alarmed if their child brought home a report card similar to the one received by the IPCC.
**21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references that the IPCC received an F. The IPCC relied on peer-reviewed literature less than 60 percent of the time in these chapters. **
5,587 references in the IPCC report were not peer-reviewed. Among these documents are press releases, newspaper and magazine articles, discussion papers, MA and PhD theses, working papers, and advocacy literature published by environmental groups.

noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php

Note: it has also been stated a few times that IPCC has volunteers. As if this excuses mistakes made.

YET: this audit took ONLY 5 weeks work to find these - BY volunteers
. IPCC volunteers had 6 years
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

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

 

[kimmielittle]

I’ve been told that I could not find fault in WG1

How about 7% of WG1 isn’t peer reviewed?

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

noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-detailed.php

 

[JasonSB]

I was asked here, “why I didn’t Include the energy of the train”.

It is not the train that is said to be traveling at exactly 2 km/h above the speed of light.

IT is the person walking who must be traveling at the speed of light or rather exactly 2 km/h above the speed of light.

No, they are not. You are making exactly the same mistake that I have been talking about all along.

The person walking is not travelling at 2 km/h above the speed of light.

From the point of view of anyone who sees the train travelling at c - 2 km/h, the person on the train is travelling at so close to c - 2 km/h they probably wouldn’t even notice they are moving at all.

It doesn’t matter if the train is going 2 km/h below the speed of light and the person is walking towards the front of the train at 4 km/h. Both things can be true at the same time as the statement that the person never goes faster than the speed of light.

The person can fire a bullet from the back of the train to the front that is travelling at 1000 m/s and the bullet still is not going faster than the speed of light.

Within the problem, as stated, the person isn’t adding to the acceleration of the train. The train is stated as below the speed of light.

Once again, acceleration is not the same thing as velocity. The train isn’t accelerating.

 

[kimmielittle]

On questionable citations or possible conflict of interests In IPCC reports

ClimateQuotes.com Remembering what they will want us to forget

• The IPCC’s questionable citations list

Fourth Assessment Report

World Wildlife Fund citations
Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the financial sector: an agenda for action, 59 pp. [Accessed 03.05.07: http://www.wwf.org.uk/

filelibrary/pdf/allianz_rep_0605.pdf]
Austin, G., A. Williams, G. Morris, R. Spalding-Feche, and R. Worthington, 2003: Employment potential of renewable energy in South Africa. Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Denmark, November, 104 pp.
Baker, T., 2005: Vulnerability Assessment of the North-East Atlantic Shelf Marine Ecoregion to Climate Change, Workshop Project Report, WWF, Godalming, Surrey, 79 pp.
Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael, C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35 pp. www.wwf.org.au/ publications/acg_solutions.pdf
Dlugolecki, A. and S. Lafeld, 2005: Climate change – agenda for action: the financial sector’s perspective. Allianz Group and WWF, Munich [may be the same document as “Allianz” above, except that one is dated 2006 and the other 2005]
Fritsche, U.R., K. Hünecke, A. Hermann, F. Schulze, and K. Wiegmann, 2006: Sustainability standards for bioenergy. Öko-Institut e.V., Darmstadt, WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main, November
Giannakopoulos, C., M. Bindi, M. Moriondo, P. LeSager and T. Tin, 2005: Climate Change Impacts in the Mediterranean Resulting from a 2oC Global Temperature Rise. WWF report, Gland Switzerland. Accessed 01.10.2006 at assets.panda.org/downloads/medreportfinal8july05.pdf.
Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffmann, 2003: Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF Climate Change Program, Berlin, 246 pp.
panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/our_solutions/business_industry/climate_savers/ index.cfm
Lechtenbohmer, S., V. Grimm, D. Mitze, S. Thomas, M. Wissner, 2005: Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. WWF European Policy Office, Wuppertal
Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, L. Miller, T. Allnut and L. Hansen, Eds., 2002a: Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, 40 pp.
Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications /files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf
WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004. wwf.org/
WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp.
Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail? Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland
This is the famously inaccurate citation about the Himalayan glaciers:WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp.
Greenpeace citations
Aringhoff, R., C. Aubrey, G. Brakmann, and S. Teske, 2003: Solar thermal power 2020, Greenpeace International/European Solar Thermal Power Industry Association, Netherlands
ESTIA, 2004: Exploiting the heat from the sun to combat climate change. European Solar Thermal Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar Thermal Power 2020, UK
Greenpeace, 2004: greenpeace.org.ar/cop10ing/SolarGeneration.pdf accessed 05/06/07
Greenpeace, 2006: Solar generation. K. McDonald (ed.), Greenpeace International, Amsterdam
GWEC, 2006: Global wind energy outlook. Global Wind Energy Council, Bruxelles and Greenpeace, Amsterdam, September, 56 pp., accessed 05/06/07
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., H. Hoegh-Guldberg, H. Cesar and A. Timmerman, 2000: Pacific in peril: biological, economic and social impacts of climate change on Pacific coral reefs. Greenpeace, 72 pp.
Lazarus, M., L. Greber, J. Hall, C. Bartels, S. Bernow, E. Hansen, P. Raskin, and D. Von Hippel, 1993: Towards a fossil free energy future: the next energy transition. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston Center, Boston. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam.
Wind Force 12, 2005: Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace, gwec.net/index.php?id=8, accessed 03/07/07
****continued

 

[kimmielittle]

Continued

Other questionable citations

Citing a magazine:Bowen, N., 2002: Canary in a coalmine. Climbing News, 208, 90-97, 138-139.
Citing a student’s dissertation:Schwörer, D.A., 1997: Bergführer und Klimaänderung: eine Untersuchung im Berninagebiet über mögliche Auswirkungen einer Klimaänderung auf den Bergführerberuf (Mountain guides and climate change: an inquiry into possible effects of climatic change on the mountain guide trade in the Bernina region, Switzerland). Diplomarbeit der philosophisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Bern.
Citing other Masters students:Shibru, M., 2001: Pastoralism and cattle marketing: a case study of the Borana of southern Ethiopia, Unpublished Masters Thesis, Egerton University.
Wahab, H.M., 2005: The impact of geographical information system on environmental development, unpublished MSc Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, 148 pp.
Gray, K.N., 1999: The impacts of drought on Yakima Valley irrigated agriculture and Seattle municipal and industrial water supply. Masters Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 102 pp.
Bohm, M.C., 2006: Capture-ready power plants - Options, technologies and economics, MSc Thesis, MIT. , accessed 05/06/07.
Duncan, A., 2005: Solar building developments. Master Applied Science thesis, Massey University Library, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Sekar, R.S., 2005: Carbon dioxide capture from coal-fired power plants: a real options analysis. MSc Thesis, MIT. accessed 02/07/07.
Banda, A., 2002: Electricity production from sugar industries in Africa: A case study of South Africa. M.Sc thesis, University of Cape Town, South Africa.
Kaartinen, T., 2004: Sustainable disposal of residual fractions of MSW to future landfills. M.S. Thesis, Technical University of Helsinki, Espoo, Finland. In Finnish.
Citing a boot and clothing de-contamination guide for Antarctic tour operators:IAATO, 2005: Update on **boot and clothing decontamination guidelines **and the introduction and detection of diseases in Antarctic wildlife: IAATO’s perspective. Paper submitted by the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) XXVIII. IAATO, 10 pp. iaato.org/info.html.

---

 

[kimmielittle]

AR4 isn’t the first time questionable citations appear

Third Assessment report

World Wildlife Fund citationsMalcolm, J.R. and A. Markham, 2000: Global Warming and Terrestrial Biodiversity Decline. World Wildlife Fund, Gland, Switzerland, 34 pp
Arntzen, J. and S. Ringrose, 1996: Changes in rangelands. In: Climate Change and Southern Africa: An Exploration of Some Potential Impacts and Implications in the SADC Region [Hulme, M. (ed.)]. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom and World Wildlife Fund International
McNeely, J., K. Miller, W. Reid, and T. Werner, 1990: Conserving the World’s Biological Diversity. World Resources Institute, IUCN, Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund, Gland, Switzerland, and World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 193 pp.
Rogers, D., 1996: Changes in disease vectors. In: Climate Change and Southern Africa: An Exploration of Some Potential Impacts and Implications in the SADC Region [Hulme, M. (ed.)]. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom, and World Wildlife Fund International, Gland, Switzerland.
EEPSEA, 2000: The Indonesian Fires and Haze of 1997: The Economic Toll and the World Wide Fund for Nature. Economy and Environment Program for SE Asia, World Wildlife Fund, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada, 9 pp. Available via e-mail at info@idrc.ca.
Barber, C.V. and J. Schweithelm, 2000: Trial by Fire: Forest Fire and Forestry Policy in Indonesia’s Era of Crisis and Reform. World Resource Institute, Forest Frontiers, World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF)-Indonesia, Telapak Indonesia Foundation, 448 pp.
Whetton, P.H., 1999: Comment on the 1999 Climate Change Scenarios for Australia. United Kingdom Climatic Research Unit and World Wildlife Fund, Climate Impact Team, CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia, 3
Freese, C.H., 2000: The Consumptive Use of Wild Species in the Arctic: Challenges and Opportunities for Ecological Sustainability. Report submitted to World Wildlife Fund, Arctic Programme, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 145 pp.
Helmer, W.P., P. Vellinga, G. Litjens, H. Goosen, E. Ruijgrok, and W. Overmars, 1996: Growing with the Sea—Creating a Resilient Coastline. World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Zeist, The Netherlands, 39 pp.
IUCN, WWF and UNEP, 1980: World Conservation Strategy. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Geneva and UNEP, Nairobi.
WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 1996: Sustainable Energy Technology in the South. A Report to WWF by Institute of Environmental Studies, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Tata Energy Research Institute, New Delhi, India.
Bernow, S., K. Cory, W. Dougherty, M. Duckworth, S. Kartha, and M. Ruth, 1999: America’s Global Warming Solutions. Worldwildlife Fund, Washington, DC.
Greenpeace citationsRadford, D., R. Blong, A.M. d’Aubert, I. Kuhnel, and P. Nunn, 1996: Occurence of Tropical Cyclones in the Southwest Pacific Region 1920-1994. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 35 pp.

continued

 

[kimmielittle]

Continued

Gibson, M.A. and S.A. Schullinger, 1998: Answers from the Ice Edge: The Consequences of Climate Change on Life in the

Bering and Chukchi Seas. Greenpeace Arctic Network, Anchorage, AK, USA, pp. 32.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., 1999: Climate Change, Coral Bleaching and the Future of the World's Coral Reefs. Greenpeace

International, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 27 pp.

Greenpeace, 1999: Wind Force 10: a blueprint to achieve 10% of the world’s electricity from wind power by 2020.

Greenpeace and European Wind Energy Association Report, Greenpeace, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Can anyone hold a straight face saying IPCC hasn’t appealed to authority, Isn’t as promoted, doesn’t use questionable gray material that reasonable minds might see - as conflict of interest issues?

IMO, it is only the authoritarian scientists who would even attempt such.

 

[kimmielittle]

On transparency within the IPCC process

It is stated:

May I in this context inform you of the unique nature of the IPCC. The Panel mobilizes thousands
of the best scientists in the world for its assessment of various aspects of climate change. This
work is carried out with complete transparency and objectivity in all the procedures followed and
peer reviews carried out at each stage of the process by experts as well as governments; the
approval and acceptance of the Summary for Policymakers involves all the governments, which
gives them direct participation in the process and a full sense of ownership in the work of the IPCC.

ipcc.ch/graphics/speeches/rajendra-pachauri-poznan-01-december-08.pdf

YET: It is suggested much needs to be done;

Recommendation: The IPCC should complete and implement a communications strategy that emphasizes transparency, rapid and thoughtful responses, and relevance to stakeholders, and which includes guidelines about who can speak on behalf of IPCC and how to represent the organization appropriately.

FULL REPORT

 

[kimmielittle]

The train isn’t accelerating.

ABSOLUTELY!!! BUT the person is walking.

 

[kimmielittle]

OPEN to interpretation “90% likely”

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which *DailyTech *has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that – whatever the cause may be – the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte’s survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of “90% likely” man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of “thousands of scientists” involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of “lead authors.” The introductory “Summary for Policymakers” – the only portion usually quoted in the media – is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters – the only text actually written by scientists – are edited to “ensure compliance” with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

No doubt it will be said that some of these papers don’t mention AGW because it’s taken for granted.

 

[JasonSB]

IMO. We owe a debt of thanks to our resident scientist here for providing an opportunity to **prove ** an answer to a problem, can be solved correctly - using entirely different avenues.

But your answer wasn’t correct. You said the passenger couldn’t exceed the speed of light because to accelerate a mass to the speed of light would require infinite energy. But that’s completely irrelevant because the passenger isn’t accelerated to the speed of light. The passenger has no difficulty getting up and walking about, throwing balls, firing bullets, or anything, and the entire time he gets no closer (not measurably so, anyway) to the speed of light than the train itself does.

The entire problem boils down to the mistake of thinking that you can add velocities together when you can’t. The only reason you think the passenger is in danger of going above the speed of light is because you mistakenly added the passenger’s velocity to the train’s velocity. It’s exactly the same mistake that I used in my hypothetical example to Ender – the only difference is that you used the mistake to say “the passenger can’t travel above the speed of light” (without saying what impact that actually has on the passenger) instead of saying that Relativity is obviously wrong. The passenger doesn’t travel above the speed of light.

My answer was correct…my avenue rules of kenitec energy ] was correct And applies to the original stated problem - but it WASN’T solved the way our scientist wished me to solve it.

The fact that you still think your answer was correct and still don’t understand why it’s actually completely irrelevant merely proves the point I was making in my original hypothetical example – the fact that I can’t successfully explain something to you (in this case, even the actual problem) in no way reflects on the accuracy of the science itself. You can make endless comments about flaws you perceive with the problem or the solution and yet all of the “holes” you “pick” in it (like comments relating to the meaning of “TO WALK”) imply nothing about the science and should not be taken as such.

The lesson as I see it, is in ** interpretation and definition **. Poorly defined problems - leads to different interpretations.

Actually, the problem is completely well-defined and accurately specified, and there is no problem with either interpretations or definitions to someone who actually understands.

If you really want to understand, the issue is time dilation, as I mentioned before. The passenger is walking at 4 km per hour but the length of the passenger’s hour is different to the length of the external observer’s hour – the external observer who observes the train to be travelling at c - 2 km/h.

Can you actually travel faster than the speed of light? Well, if “speed” means “distance travelled divided by the time it takes you to travel that distance”, then the answer is “yes, of course”. If you had a rocket that could sustain an acceleration of 1 g (so it would feel the same as it feels on Earth) that you accelerated for half the trip and then decellerated again for the other half of the trip then it would only take you 3.6 years to reach the nearest star, which is 4.3 light-years away. That’s a speed of 4.3/3.6 = 1.2 times the speed of light. You could reach the centre of our galaxy in 20 years – that’s 30,000 light-years away, so your average speed is nearly 1,500 times the speed of light. You could even reach Andromeda galaxy in just 28 years, which is 2 million light-years away – over 70,000 times the speed of light.

The problem is that the time that has elapsed back home is much longer – just over 2 million years, in the case of the trip to Andromeda – because from their point of view, you are still travelling below the speed of light. As you go faster, the energy you are putting in to accelerating is actually going in to slowing down your time instead. It feels the same to you, because you are subject to that time dilation, but it’s different to those outside. So if you ever want to see those you left behind again then you’d better not travel too far.

I don’t think this is the lesson JasonSB wished for us to see, however. Or he would have pointed this out himself.

Actually, this has been an absolutely perfect demonstration of precisely the point I was trying to make.

Authoritative science has little regard for differences of interpretations, IMO

Science is a meritocracy, I’m afraid. The facts are the ultimate authority, and if your “interpretation” is inconsistent with the facts then I’m afraid science does have little regard for it.

Just to repeat: your observation that no mass can be accelerated to the speed of light has no bearing on the problem. It’s not an “alternative avenue” to the solution, it’s a completely irrelevant observation.

 

[kimmielittle]

it’s a completely irrelevant observation.

That is YOUR interpretation.

 

[kimmielittle]

Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC’s embattled chairman, insists his organization scrupulously followed the rules when it produced the 2007 report on which governments now rely to make multi-billion-dollar decisions. A month ago, he assured us that this document:
…was based on scientific studies completed before January 2006, and did not include later studies…

YET:

If this is true how could a paper that wasn’t accepted for publication until 29 months later be cited multiple times?
The paper in question is titled “West Antarctic ice sheet collapse – the fall and rise of a paradigm.” It was authored by David G. Vaughan, a scientist with the British Antarctic Survey. As the abstract makes clear the study was submitted to the journal Climatic Change in November 2005.
The date on a PDF found here tells us a revised version was prepared in January 2006. Although it’s unclear what occurred during the next 29 months, the abstract says this paper wasn’t accepted for publication until May 2008. (The Working Group 1 installment of the IPCC report was itself finalized in February 2007, leaving a 15-month gap between the IPCC report’s published summary and the Vaughan paper’s acceptance. There is a 20-month gap between the apparent full publication of the Working Group 1 report in March 2007 and the paper’s appearance in print in November 2008.)
The paper is listed in the references for Chapter 10 of the IPCC’s Working Group 1 report here where it looks like this:
Vaughan, D.G., 2007: West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse – the fall and rise of a paradigm. Clim. Change, in press.
It is cited (incorrectly, given its eventual 2008 publication date) as Vaughan, 2007 on this page to support a statement whose plausibility it actually rejects. The IPCC declares:
If the Amundsen Sea sector were eventually deglaciated, it would add about 1.5 m to sea level, while the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) would account for about 5 m (Vaughan, 2007). [bold added]
But concluding remarks on page 13 of the January 2006 version of Vaughan’s paper leave a different impession:
Since most of WAIS is not showing change, it now seems unlikely that complete collapse of WAIS, with the threat of a 5-m rise in sea level, is imminent in the coming few centuries. [bold added]
If the sole research paper the IPCC cites to establish the notion of a 5-meter sea level rise says such an event is “unlikely” shouldn’t the IPCC mention this fact? Yet when the Vaughan paper gets cited on this page, the IPCC once again fails to tell the whole story. Instead, alarming statements go unqualified:
A collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) has been discussed as a potential response to global warming for many years (Bindschadler, 1998; Oppenheimer, 1998; Vaughan, 2007). A complete collapse would cause a global sea level rise of about 5 m. [bold added]
But wait, there’s more. The Vaughan study is also cited on this page – bringing to three the number of times the IPCC’s Working Group 1 report relies on a paper whose publication status has yet to be determined. The IPCC’s Working Group 2 also gets in on the act. It cites the Vaughan paper once on this page of Chapter 15 and three times on this page of Chapter 19.
So why was this paper even under consideration by the IPCC? What does this paper say that’s so important, so unique, so dramatic or authoritative that the IPCC felt it couldn’t rely on already-published research to make the same case?

nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/more-ipcc-mischief-2/

 

[JasonSB]

IMO, Authoritarian scientists fail to admit or learn from their past mistakes.

Once again, evil Exon is stated to be funding skeptical scientists. Yet, no answer to my questions.

Basically put, my question remains: “What is the difference between oil funding of skeptical scientist and CRU and AGW scientists?”

You seriously can’t see the difference between:

1. Funding of scientific research.
2. Funding of PR campaigns designed to convince the public that the results of the scientific research are different to what the science itself says or that the science is “unsound”.

Seriously?

Do you really think that the only thing that matters is that money has changed hands, and that it makes no difference who that money was given to or what that money was for?

 

[JasonSB]

I’ve been told basically, that IPCC doesn’t use appeal to authority fallacy.

YET:

I donno, it looks like one of many ] Appeal to authority made by IPCC’s leader to me.

That’s not the IPCC, that’s the guy that the Bush administration promoted to replace Robert Watson, the climate scientist who used to head the IPCC, remember?

Isn’t it just a little disingenuous to use statements by a guy that the climate scientists didn’t want, who was a political appointment promoted by Bush and isn’t even a climate scientist, against the climate scientists?

Does the IPCC report say “Global warming is real – trust us, we’re scientists?” No. It clearly spells out the evidence in the scientific literature so everyone can see for themselves why the IPCC report reaches the conclusions it does. Quotes by Pachauri do not refute that.