Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data

[spn82756]

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?

My guess is that you won’t want to read anything at this site. :banghead:

iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

 

[StAnastasia]

My guess is that you won’t want to read anything at this site.

OK, did some reading – now what?

Climate Change Denial Conference

"Heartland. From March 2-4, right-wing climate-denier group The Heartland Institute will host what it calls a ‘Climate Skeptics’ Conference. Heartland President Joseph Blast boasted that his conference would feature climate change deniers: “This is their chance to speak out.” The online poster for the conference declares, “Global Warming is not a crisis!”

Heartland’s environmental stance is completely out of the mainstream. The debate over human contribution to global warming is long over. Even as all three top GOP presidential candidates recently endorsed California’s effort to reduce auto greenhouse gas emissions, Heartland ridiculed the idea, calling California and its allies “environmental extremists.”

 

[spn82756]

OK, did some reading – now what?

Climate Change Denial Conference

"Heartland. From March 2-4, right-wing climate-denier group The Heartland Institute will host what it calls a ‘Climate Skeptics’ Conference. Heartland President Joseph Blast boasted that his conference would feature climate change deniers: “This is their chance to speak out.” The online poster for the conference declares, “Global Warming is not a crisis!”

Heartland’s environmental stance is completely out of the mainstream. The debate over human contribution to global warming is long over. Even as all three top GOP presidential candidates recently endorsed California’s effort to reduce auto greenhouse gas emissions, Heartland ridiculed the idea, calling California and its allies “environmental extremists.”

WOW…went straight to a wacko page and finally read something. Do you really want to see what the other side says? Try www.icecap.us otherwise you’re doing nothing but paying lip service to my suggestion. I won’t even bother with such silliness. Obviously you are not a scientist…nor well versed in scientific procedure.

later

 

[spn82756]

OK, did some reading – now what?

Climate Change Denial Conference

"Heartland. From March 2-4, right-wing climate-denier group The Heartland Institute will host what it calls a ‘Climate Skeptics’ Conference. Heartland President Joseph Blast boasted that his conference would feature climate change deniers: “This is their chance to speak out.” The online poster for the conference declares, “Global Warming is not a crisis!”

Heartland’s environmental stance is completely out of the mainstream. The debate over human contribution to global warming is long over. Even as all three top GOP presidential candidates recently endorsed California’s effort to reduce auto greenhouse gas emissions, Heartland ridiculed the idea, calling California and its allies “environmental extremists.”

You have no leg to stand on any longer. So you resort to silliness

 

[vz71]

you’re doing nothing but paying lip service to my suggestion

We are just now getting to that point?

I figured out a long time ago that StAnastasia has already formed their opinion, and nothing will change it…not even the facts.

 

[spn82756]

We are just now getting to that point?

I figured out a long time ago that StAnastasia has already formed their opinion, and nothing will change it…not even the facts.

Amen!

 

[spn82756]

We are just now getting to that point?

I figured out a long time ago that StAnastasia has already formed their opinion, and nothing will change it…not even the facts.

It’s sad that someone with no desire to learn is so concrete in what she says. DEFINITELY not scientific.

BTW…I also do not believe the other side of the coin presented on the National Geographic Channel. There is no global cooling. We’re just plodding along the way of nature. Of course that was created by God.

 

[spn82756]

I can say one thing about this thread. I’ve doubled my posts!!! :whacky:

 

[kimmielittle]

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.”

Hiyas
From your link

An Angry Voice
With its recent climate-induced catastrophes, Bolivia has become an angry voice for poor nations, demanding that any financing be paid out in full and rapidly.
“We have a big problem and even money won’t completely solve it,” said Pablo Solón, Bolivia’s ambassador to the United Nations. “What do you do when your glacier disappears or your island is under water?”
Scientists say that money and engineering could solve La Paz-El Alto’s water problems, with projects including a well-designed reservoir. The glaciers that ring the cities have essentially provided natural low-maintenance storage, collecting water in the short rainy season and releasing it for water and electricity in the long dry one. With warmer temperatures and changing rainfall, they no longer do so.
“The effects are appearing much more rapidly than we can respond to them, and a reservoir takes five to seven years to build. I’m not sure we have that long,” said Edson Ramírez, a Bolivian glaciologist who has documented and projected the glaciers’ retreat for two decades.

Two decades AND no Wells?
Two decades and no dams?

They have some sort of hydro-electric dams…that’s where they get electricity.

The retreat has outpaced his wildest predictions. He had predicted that one glacier, Chacaltaya, would last until 2020. It disappeared this year. In 2006, he said El Alto water demand would outstrip supply by 2009. It happened.
But global warming alone cannot be blamed for the longstanding woes of this exotic but desperately poor landlocked country, where per capita income is around $1,000. Urban water supplies are also taxed by population growth as well as checkered management, in part because there is little money to manage anything, but also because the government nationalized the water company a few years ago, having declared water a human right. El Alto still does not employ a full-time water technician.

Developed countries agree that they have an obligation to help relieve such stresses, but many remain hesitant to release funds, in part because poor countries have few concrete plans to address climate problems. The effects of climate changes have not yet been analyzed or quantified by Epsas, the water company, for example.But with little cash or expertise, it is hard to plan a giant new reservoir or a system to transfer water from one part of the country to another. Bolivia’s poor, said Edwin Torrez Soria, an engineer with Aqua Sustentable, who works with villages near the Illimani glacier, “aren’t responsible for what’s happening to the glacier but they suffer the most, and unfortunately the government doesn’t have much of a plan.”

I then looked up Bolivia’s environmental record…

I’ll just state IMHO…Bolivia needs to step-up before “demanding” eco-welfare.

If I came to someone “demanding” Billions of dollars…wouldn’t I need to show some plans?

Should we help…of course.
Should I be forced to help a country that won’t help or plan…

As Always just my thoughts

PS World Bank’s partner Global Environmental Facility Have vested interest In Bolivia.

forestpeoples.org/documents/ifi_igo/gef/fpp_gef_briefing_aug06_eng.pdf

It is why they wrote the report

 

[kimmielittle]

Here is IPCC’s Peer Review We hear so much about;

6 - Peer-reviewed papers are true and accurate
The peer-review process was established for the benefit of editors who did not have good knowledge across all the fields that their journals addressed. It provided a “sanity check” to avoid the risk of publishing papers which were so outlandish that the journal would be ridiculed and lose its reputation.
In principle this notion seems entirely reasonable, but it neglects certain aspects of human nature, especially the tendency for reviewers to defend their own (earlier) papers, and indirectly their reputations, against challengers. Peer review also ignores the strong tendency for papers that disagree with a popular hypothesis, one the reviewer understands and perhaps supports, to receive a closer and often hostile scrutiny.
Reviewers are selected from practitioners in the field, but many scientific fields are so small that the reviewers will know the authors. The reviewers may even have worked with the authors in the past or wish to work with them in future, so the objectivity of any review is likely to be tainted by this association.
Some journals now request that authors suggest appropriate reviewers but this is a sure way to identify reviewers who will be favourable to certain propositions.
It also follows that if the editor of a journal wishes to reject a paper, then it will be sent to a reviewer who is likely to reject it, whereas a paper that the editor favours to be published will be sent to a reviewer who is expected to be sympathetic. In 2002 the editor-in-chief of the journal “Science” announced that there was no longer any doubt that human activity was changing climate, so what are the realistic chances of this journal publishing a paper that suggests otherwise?
The popular notion is that reviewers should be skilled in the relevant field, but a scientific field like climate change is so broad, and encompasses so many sub disciplines, that it really requires the use of expert reviewers from many different fields. That this is seldom undertaken explains why so many initially influential climate papers have later been found to be fundamentally flawed.
In theory, reviewers should be able to understand and replicate the processing used by the author(s). In practice, climate science has numerous examples where authors of highly influential papers have refused to reveal their complete set of data or the processing methods that they used. Even worse, the journals in question not only allowed this to happen, but have subsequently defended the lack of disclosure when other researchers attempted to replicate the work.

scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html

 

[spn82756]

Here is IPCC’s Peer Review We hear so much about;

scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html

okay…I can just sit by and watch. You’re doing such a good job of presenting scientific and critical evidence.

hmmmmm…not sure I can really bow out. I’ve just consider some posts to be uninformed and therefore irrelevant. That’s how science works.

keep going kimmie
Steve

 

[kimmielittle]

Here is consensus

4 - The consensus among scientists is decisive (or even important)
The extent of a claimed consensus that dangerous human-caused global warming is occurring is unknown and the claim of consensus is unsupported by any objective data[4]. However, this is irrelevant because by its nature any consensus is a product of opinions, not facts.[5]
Though consensus determines legal and political decisions in most countries, this simply reflects the number of persons who interpret data in a certain way or who have been influenced by the opinions of others. Consensus does not confer accuracy or “rightness”.
Scientific matters are certainly not settled by consensus. Einstein pointed out that hundreds of people agreeing with him were of no relevance, because it would take just one person to prove him wrong.
Science as a whole, and its near neighbour medicine, are replete with examples of individuals or small groups of researchers successfully undermining the prevailing popular theories of the day. This is not to say that individuals or small groups who hold maverick views are always correct, but it is to say that even the most widely-held opinions should never be regarded as an ultimate truth.
Science is about observation, experiment and the testing of hypotheses, not consensus.

scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html

 

[spn82756]

Here is consensus

scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html

Kimmie…you don’t really expect StAnastasia to read this…do you? Scientific evidence that counters her inborn flawless knowledge of the subject is not to be used.

peace

 

[kimmielittle]

Look how many read them

7 - The IPCC is a reliable authority and its reports are both correct and widely endorsed by all scientists
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) undertakes no research for itself and relies on peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals (see item 6). There is strong evidence that the IPCC is very selective of the papers it wishes to cite and pays scant regard to papers that do not adhere to the notion that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide have caused warming.
Four more issues noted above are also very relevant to the IPCC procedures. The IPCC reports are based on historical temperature data and trends (see 1 & 2), and the attribution of warming to human activities relies very heavily on climate modelling (see item 3). The IPCC pronouncements have a powerful influence on the direction and funding of scientific research into climate change, which in turn influences the number of research papers on these topics. Ultimately, and in entirely circular fashion, this leads the IPCC to report that large numbers of papers support a certain hypothesis (see item 5).
These fallacies alone are major defects of the IPCC reports, but the problems do not end there. Other distortions and fallacies of the IPCC are of its own doing.
Governments appoint experts to work with the IPCC but once appointed those experts can directly invite other experts to join them. This practice obviously can, and does, lead to a situation where the IPCC is heavily biased towards the philosophies and ideologies of certain governments or science groups.
The lead authors of the chapters of the IPCC reports can themselves be researchers whose work is cited in those chapters. This was the case with the so-called “hockey stick” temperature graph in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) published in 2001. The paper in which the graph first appeared was not subject to proper and independent peer review, despite which the graph was prominently featured in a chapter for which the co-creator of the graph was a lead author. The graph was debunked in 2006[6] and has been omitted without explanation from the Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) of 2007.
The IPCC has often said words to the effect “We don’t know what else can be causing warming so it must be humans” (or “the climate models will only produce the correct result if we include man-made influences”), but at the same time the IPCC says that scientists have a low level of understanding of many climate factors. It logically follows that if any natural climate factors are poorly understood then they cannot be properly modelled, the output of the models will probably be incorrect and that natural forces cannot easily be dismissed as possible causes. In these circumstances it is simply dishonest to unequivocally blame late 20th century warming on human activity.[7]
The IPCC implies that its reports are thoroughly reviewed by thousands of experts. Any impression that thousands of scientists review every word of the reports can be shown to be untrue by an examination of the review comments for the report by IPCC Working Group I. (This report is crucial, because it discusses historical observations, attributes a likely cause of change and attempts to predict global and regional changes. The reports by working groups 2 and 3 draw heavily on the findings of this WG I report.)

to be continued

 

[kimmielittle]

The analysis of the WG I report for the 4AR revealed that:
(a) A total of just 308 reviewers (including reviewers acting on behalf of governments) examined the 11 chapters of the WGI I report
(b) An average of 67 reviewers examined each chapter of this report with no chapter being examined by more than 100 reviewers and one by as few as 34.
(c) 69% of reviewers commented on less than 3 chapters of the 11-chapter report. (46% of reviewers commented on just one chapter and 23% on two chapters, thus accounting for more than two-thirds of all reviewers.)
(d) Just 5 reviewers examined all 11 chapters and two of these were recorded as “Govt of (country)”, which may represent a team of reviewers rather than individuals
(e) Every chapter had review comments from a subset of the designated authors for the chapter, which suggests that the authoring process may not have been diligent and inclusive
Chapter 9 was the key chapter because it attributed a change in climate to human activity but:
(a) Just 62 individuals or government appointed reviewers commented on this chapter
(b) A large number of reviewers had a vested interest in the content of this chapter

• 7 reviewers were “contributing editors” of the same chapter
• 3 were overall editors of the Working Group I report
• 26 were authors or co-authors of papers cited in the final draft
• 8 reviewers were noted as “Govt of …” indicating one or more reviewers who were appointed by those governments (and sometimes the same comments appear under individual names as well as for the government in question)
• Only 25 individual reviewers appeared to have no vested interest in this chapter
  (c) The number of comments from each reviewer varied greatly
• 27 reviewers made just 1 or 2 comments but those making more than 2 comments often drew attention to typographical errors, grammatical errors, mistakes in citing certain papers or inconsistencies with other chapters, so how thorough were these reviews with very few comments?
• only 18 reviewers made more than 10 comments on the entire 122-page second order draft report (98 pages of text, 24 of figures) and 9 of those 18 had a vested interest
  (d) Just four reviewers, including one government appointed team or individual, explicitly endorsed the entire chapter in its draft form - not thousands of scientists, but FOUR!
  The claim that the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report carries the imprimatur of having been reviewed by thousands, or even hundreds, of expert and independent scientists is incorrect, and even risible. In actuality, the report represents the view of small and self-selected science coteries that formed the lead authoring teams.
  More independent scientists of standing (61) signed a public letter to the Prime Minister of Canada cautioning against the assumption of human causation of warming[8] than are listed as authors of the 4AR Summary for Policymakers (52). More than 50 scientists also reviewed the Independent Summary for Policymakers, the counter-view to the IPCC’s summary that was published by the Fraser Institute of Canada[9].

 

[kimmielittle]

Kimmie…you don’t really expect StAnastasia to read this…do you? Scientific evidence that counters her inborn flawless knowledge of the subject is not to be used.

peace

Hiyas

Maybe they won’t read them but they can’t say I’m unintelligent OR a lemming…cause I read theirs. After all I have a PhD CTS causing thought synapses ]

 

[spn82756]

(d) Just four reviewers, including one government appointed team or individual, explicitly endorsed the entire chapter in its draft form - not thousands of scientists, but FOUR!

Just 4??? I’ll bet one of our thread saints was a reviewer.

 

[sidbrown]

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 think that your analogy is faulty here, because there is a difference between a deductive mathematical truth and the interpretation of empirical data.

 

[spn82756]

I think that your analogy is faulty here, because there is a difference between a deductive mathematical truth and the interpretation of empirical data.

I understand your concern. I think that the post you’re referring to may be alluding to the tendency to be lemmings.

peace

 

[Don_L]

I think that your analogy is faulty here, because there is a difference between a deductive mathematical truth and the interpretation of empirical data.

Not being a mathamatician or a scientist, I may be missing something. Explain to me how something becomes truth because ***many scientists say it is, say, like we all agree the earth is flat, or studies of 100 studies prove ***that…

Neither being a scientist and wearing a lab coat necessarily makes someone more right than another, nor does the number of people agreeing make something right, just because most think a certain way.