S
spn82756
Guest
Keep going dear
Although…the IPCC are paid scientists also. It’s just that you’re paying for them.
Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data
- Status
Although…the IPCC are paid scientists also. It’s just that you’re paying for them.
C
Callin
Guest
It’s official: the AP’s investigation into this matter was biased from the start. AP reporter Seth Borenstein, who covered the story, was one of the people whose emails were leaked.
That alone indicates a conflict of interest.
In addition, some of his emails show a clear bias towards these scientists, pointing to the unlikeliness of him fairly presenting both sides of the issue.
And in a response to one of his emails, he is thanked for his “pro-activeness” and asked if he can write a letter to disprove the “junk science” that disputes their claims. This is a serious conflict of interest.
AP’s Seth Borenstein is just too cozy with the people he covers – time for AP to do something about it
K
kimmielittle
Guest
to be continued
K
kimmielittle
Guest
K
kimmielittle
Guest
to be continued
K
kimmielittle
Guest
AND THEN THERE’S kimmie… a kid…my job title is: causing thought synapses
S
spn82756
Guest
Kimmie…you’ve broken my heart. My name is on that list somewhere (for real) LOL.AND THEN THERE’S kimmie… a kid…my job title is: causing thought synapses
Good job
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Thank you and thank you for the links.Kimmie…you’ve broken my heart. My name is on that list somewhere (for real) LOL.
I have gone to EVERYONE’S sides on this. At first I noticed the “Ice Melt” Mr. Gore had in his movie. Then the polar bears scared me. When I found out that was false…I just kept diggin.
C
Callin
Guest
What do you do if a reporter starts asking questions about the CRU leak?
Call security, of course!
examiner.com/x-3704-Columbia-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d12-At-gunpointreporter-stopped-from-asking-Climategate-questions
youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI
Call security, of course!
examiner.com/x-3704-Columbia-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d12-At-gunpointreporter-stopped-from-asking-Climategate-questions
EDIT: Video:
youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI
K
kimmielittle
Guest
From The Times
m1.emea.2mdn.net/720796/1x1.gif %between%
December 14, 2009
Copenhagen stalls decision on catastrophic climate change for six years
timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6955237.ece
m1.emea.2mdn.net/720796/1x1.gif %between%
December 14, 2009
Copenhagen stalls decision on catastrophic climate change for six years
timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6955237.ece
D
Don_L
Guest
You still don’t get it. The majority (consensus) agreed to crucify Christ. Numbers mean little when determining truth. It is possible for just one scientist to dissprove a consensus of a million. If a group of erronious experts agreed (have a consensus) that 2 + 2 = 7.238 it does not make it so.I’m sure we will see posted that the pew research institute is a tool, (of course like the IPCC) that the Church has been duped,- it IS the majority of the world’s scientists - I guess not the scientists one individual knows.
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
Good point!
The majority of scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation. It only took one man to disprove that.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
4elise, here’s an interesting report on how global warming is melting Bolivia’s glaciers. One of the big moral issues that should be discussed at Copenhagen is the responsibility of the most polluting nations to assist impoverished countries who are being most heavily impacted. nytimes.com/2009/12/14/science/earth/14bolivia.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
StAnastasia
"The glaciers that have long provided water and electricity to this part of Bolivia are melting and disappearing, victims of global warming, most scientists say.
"If the water problems are not solved, El Alto, a poor sister city of La Paz, could perhaps be the first large urban casualty of climate change. A World Bank report concluded last year that climate change would eliminate many glaciers in the Andes within 20 years, threatening the existence of nearly 100 million people.
"For the nearly 200 nations trying to hammer out an international climate accord in Copenhagen, the question of how to address the needs of dozens of countries like Bolivia is a central focus of the negotiations and a major obstacle to a treaty.
“World leaders have long agreed that rich nations must provide money and technology to help developing nations adapt to problems that, to a large extent, have been created by smokestacks and tailpipes far away. But the specifics of that transfer — which countries will pay, how much and for what kinds of projects — remain contentious.”
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
This would be a remarkably bad idea.
How is damage from the climate to be quantified?
How do we determine the damage due to another country and not themselves?
How do we quantify the damage as being strictly climate and not simply mismanagement of their own resources?
How do we quantify the actual monetary value to make up the difference?
How long is this ‘eco-welfare’ to keep up?
It is a bad idea to attempt to hold anyone financially responsible for bad weather.
S
spn82756
Guest
AGW fanatics are loosing the propaganda battle. They know it. That’s why they try the stunts that they are currently trying. I love how even being vegan has worked its way into this discussion. I never knew that Jesus did anything unethical…immoral or sinful. Come on St. Become enlightened. Try reading some opposing lit. www.icecap.us.
Of course…according to some on this thread…they’remuch more knowledgeable about my field than I am. :banghead:
Peace
S
spn82756
Guest
*Dec 13, 2009
AP Analysis Overlooks Scientific Implications of Climategate
By William DiPuccio
The Associated Press has published an independent investigation into the scientific implications of the recent emails hacked from East Anglia University in England. In, “AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty”, AP writers Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter, and Malcolm Ritter concluded that “the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked.”
The Scientific Consensus
But the article misses two very important points and stumbles in its logic. First, regarding the scientific consensus, the reporters conclude: “However, the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”
The emails, as the article admits, reveal that “skeptical” scientists were stonewalled, blacklisted, and repeatedly denied access to data under the FOI. If the views of these scientists had been welcomed as a check and balance on the work of others, if they had been made partners at the table, if they had been given full access to the same data, if their research was published, and if those who opposed their findings had been forced to respond to their conclusions in peer reviewed literature, then the consensus would probably look much different than it does now.
At the very least, the pretense of utter certainty which proponents of the IPCC hypothesis maintain, would have been substantially diminished and they would have been forced to acknowledge that their position was not fully supported by the peer reviewed literature.
It is circular reasoning to appeal to a consensus that was shaped by scientists conspiring to eliminate all opposition. These scientists, though relatively few in number, wielded a disproportionate influence on the scientific community. Moreover, from the private emails it is evident that they were less confident about their own conclusions than they appeared to be in public discourse.
The Significance of Errors in Past Temperature Reconstructions
Second, the writers of the AP study are totally oblivious to the implications of the attempt by Phil Jones and others to “hide the decline” in a graph that was later published in the 2001 IPCC report. The decline refers to an unmistakable deviation in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring studies. The cause of the deviation has never been resolved. Tree ring proxies are used to reconstruct temperature data for the last 1000 years (instrumental data did not start until around 1850).
Though actual temperatures were rising after 1960, the tree ring data in one major study, by Keith Briffa, indicated that temperatures were falling precipitously. It is clear from the emails that this deviation in proxy temperatures (the “divergence problem") was not disclosed to the public or policy makers because it would raise questions and uncertainties about the overall reliability of past climate reconstructions.
Historical temperature reconstructions are a crucial plank in the IPCC’s hypothesis which claims that our current warming trend is the result of CO2 emissions. If it can be shown that today’s warming is unprecedented, then it is more likely (though not certain) that CO2 emissions are interfering with nature and skewing temperatures upward.
But over the last 1000 years, average temperature has varied by only one degree according to the reconstructions. The case for today’s extraordinary temperatures rides on only four or five tenths of a degree. The large shaded area in the attached graph (from IPCC TAR), which delineates the margin of error, clearly shows the imprecise nature these reconstructions. Briffa’s reconstruction (green line) was truncated at 1960 to “hide the decline.”
image
2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (Figure 2.21) comparing different Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions from 1000 A.D. to 2000 A.D. The recent instrumental Northern Hemisphere temperature record to 1999 is shown for comparison. Two standard error limits (shaded region) for the smoothed Mann et al. (1999) series are shown. The horizontal zero line denotes the 1961 to 1990 reference period mean temperature. Enlarged here.
Questions raised about the reliability of temperature reconstructions using tree ring data can effectively undermine the claim that our current warming is unprecedented. For example if temperatures in the medieval period were actually closer to the upper portion of the shaded area, as most paleoclimate histories have shown, then there would be no cause for alarm.
The AP investigation was misleading on this particular. The authors tell us that the so-called “hockey stick” reconstruction (shown on the graph) which asserted the 1990s were the hottest years in a millennium, was “upheld as valid” by a National Academy of Sciences study.
(continued)*
AP Analysis Overlooks Scientific Implications of Climategate
By William DiPuccio
The Associated Press has published an independent investigation into the scientific implications of the recent emails hacked from East Anglia University in England. In, “AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty”, AP writers Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter, and Malcolm Ritter concluded that “the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked.”
The Scientific Consensus
But the article misses two very important points and stumbles in its logic. First, regarding the scientific consensus, the reporters conclude: “However, the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”
The emails, as the article admits, reveal that “skeptical” scientists were stonewalled, blacklisted, and repeatedly denied access to data under the FOI. If the views of these scientists had been welcomed as a check and balance on the work of others, if they had been made partners at the table, if they had been given full access to the same data, if their research was published, and if those who opposed their findings had been forced to respond to their conclusions in peer reviewed literature, then the consensus would probably look much different than it does now.
At the very least, the pretense of utter certainty which proponents of the IPCC hypothesis maintain, would have been substantially diminished and they would have been forced to acknowledge that their position was not fully supported by the peer reviewed literature.
It is circular reasoning to appeal to a consensus that was shaped by scientists conspiring to eliminate all opposition. These scientists, though relatively few in number, wielded a disproportionate influence on the scientific community. Moreover, from the private emails it is evident that they were less confident about their own conclusions than they appeared to be in public discourse.
The Significance of Errors in Past Temperature Reconstructions
Second, the writers of the AP study are totally oblivious to the implications of the attempt by Phil Jones and others to “hide the decline” in a graph that was later published in the 2001 IPCC report. The decline refers to an unmistakable deviation in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring studies. The cause of the deviation has never been resolved. Tree ring proxies are used to reconstruct temperature data for the last 1000 years (instrumental data did not start until around 1850).
Though actual temperatures were rising after 1960, the tree ring data in one major study, by Keith Briffa, indicated that temperatures were falling precipitously. It is clear from the emails that this deviation in proxy temperatures (the “divergence problem") was not disclosed to the public or policy makers because it would raise questions and uncertainties about the overall reliability of past climate reconstructions.
Historical temperature reconstructions are a crucial plank in the IPCC’s hypothesis which claims that our current warming trend is the result of CO2 emissions. If it can be shown that today’s warming is unprecedented, then it is more likely (though not certain) that CO2 emissions are interfering with nature and skewing temperatures upward.
But over the last 1000 years, average temperature has varied by only one degree according to the reconstructions. The case for today’s extraordinary temperatures rides on only four or five tenths of a degree. The large shaded area in the attached graph (from IPCC TAR), which delineates the margin of error, clearly shows the imprecise nature these reconstructions. Briffa’s reconstruction (green line) was truncated at 1960 to “hide the decline.”
image
2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (Figure 2.21) comparing different Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions from 1000 A.D. to 2000 A.D. The recent instrumental Northern Hemisphere temperature record to 1999 is shown for comparison. Two standard error limits (shaded region) for the smoothed Mann et al. (1999) series are shown. The horizontal zero line denotes the 1961 to 1990 reference period mean temperature. Enlarged here.
Questions raised about the reliability of temperature reconstructions using tree ring data can effectively undermine the claim that our current warming is unprecedented. For example if temperatures in the medieval period were actually closer to the upper portion of the shaded area, as most paleoclimate histories have shown, then there would be no cause for alarm.
The AP investigation was misleading on this particular. The authors tell us that the so-called “hockey stick” reconstruction (shown on the graph) which asserted the 1990s were the hottest years in a millennium, was “upheld as valid” by a National Academy of Sciences study.
(continued)*
S
spn82756
Guest
But, in fact, there were two studies. The second, conducted by a team of statisticians led by Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, was highly critical of the hockey-stick reconstruction.
image
A pre-publication draft version of the same graph showing the deviation in Briffa’s reconstruction after 1960 (yellow line). Overall, Briffa’s reconstruction shows a significant departure from the other series. This was apparently adjusted in the final version. Image courtesty of Steve McIntyre, climateaudit.org. Enlarged here.
The AP article never mentioned this investigation. Nor did it mention that in the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment, the hockey stick temperature profile was barely discernable. Temperatures in the middle ages were noticeably elevated over those in the 2001 assessment, though still not as high as the current instrumental record.
Contrary to the conclusions drawn by the AP investigation, there are serious scientific implications surrounding the Climategate emails. Though defenders continue to beat the drums in favor of the scientific consensus, it is becoming clear not only that this consensus was partially manufactured through manipulation, but also that the science it represents does not rise to the level of certainty it has auspiciously claimed.
Over the last couple of years, numerous studies have challenged various aspects of the IPCC’s science, including the dominance of CO2. Natural variability - ocean oscillations, solar cycles, etc. - plays a larger role in climate change than once thought. A spate of recent research has shown that aerosol pollution (e.g., soot, sulfur, nitrogen, dust) and changes in land use changes (e.g., deforestation, agriculture, urbanization) have a greater impact on climate than CO2.
Before we pull the trigger and spend billions of dollars on controlling carbon emissions, we need to consider the entire range of scientific research and reassess our policies in light of these findings.
Bill DiPuccio was a weather forecaster for the U.S. Navy, and a Meteorological/Radiosonde Technician for the National Weather Service. More recently, he served as head of the science department for Orthodox Christian Schools of Northeast Ohio. He continues to write science curriculum, publish articles, and conduct science camps.
image
A pre-publication draft version of the same graph showing the deviation in Briffa’s reconstruction after 1960 (yellow line). Overall, Briffa’s reconstruction shows a significant departure from the other series. This was apparently adjusted in the final version. Image courtesty of Steve McIntyre, climateaudit.org. Enlarged here.
The AP article never mentioned this investigation. Nor did it mention that in the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment, the hockey stick temperature profile was barely discernable. Temperatures in the middle ages were noticeably elevated over those in the 2001 assessment, though still not as high as the current instrumental record.
Contrary to the conclusions drawn by the AP investigation, there are serious scientific implications surrounding the Climategate emails. Though defenders continue to beat the drums in favor of the scientific consensus, it is becoming clear not only that this consensus was partially manufactured through manipulation, but also that the science it represents does not rise to the level of certainty it has auspiciously claimed.
Over the last couple of years, numerous studies have challenged various aspects of the IPCC’s science, including the dominance of CO2. Natural variability - ocean oscillations, solar cycles, etc. - plays a larger role in climate change than once thought. A spate of recent research has shown that aerosol pollution (e.g., soot, sulfur, nitrogen, dust) and changes in land use changes (e.g., deforestation, agriculture, urbanization) have a greater impact on climate than CO2.
Before we pull the trigger and spend billions of dollars on controlling carbon emissions, we need to consider the entire range of scientific research and reassess our policies in light of these findings.
Bill DiPuccio was a weather forecaster for the U.S. Navy, and a Meteorological/Radiosonde Technician for the National Weather Service. More recently, he served as head of the science department for Orthodox Christian Schools of Northeast Ohio. He continues to write science curriculum, publish articles, and conduct science camps.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
If they are losing the battle, why is so much attention focused now on Copenhagen? Where will the anti-global warming fanatics hold their own international meeting? Or aren’t there enough of you to generate sufficient enthusiasm for an international conference?
S
spn82756
Guest
have you even bothered to check the opposing sites I’ve listed? Reading opposing views is a sign of intelligence. And that is not an attempt to say you are not intelligent…merely a tip in scientific discouse. But then again…according to you…after 30 years I’m out to lunch and am ignorant in my own degreed field.
I also an not into selective reading. I gave the website for the non-governmental page which has far more scientists and has held international conferences. Another thing you’ve chosen to ignore. I wonder what you would think if I started to tell you how to be a housewife and mother? Is that your profession. (and it certainly is an honorable one if it is)
- Status