whereaminow (58.64)

67 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 30, 2010 at 9:57 AM, TMFCop (84.11) wrote:

Let's call it for what it is: man-made global warming is a FRAUD.

Now it comes out that in addition to the false information about the glaciers, the IPCC fudged the information about Amazon deforestation too! Seems they relied upon more "research"conducted by the World Wildlife Federation to "prove" up to 40% of the Amazon rainforests face deforestation by the effects of global warming.

Only the WWF report wasn't talking about global warming, it was talking about logging. Oops.

But wait! There's more. Seems the Nobel prize winning IPCC AR4 report is riddled with references to WWF literature. The environmental activists report is the only reference for the IPCC on the impact of coastal development in Latin America. Inand mangroves, the WWF is the only citation for believing "the Mesoamerican reef there are up to 25 times more fish of some species on reefs close to mangrove areas than in areas where mangrove reefs have been destroyed."

The WWF is NOT a scientific outfit, but a political one, with a pretty strong agenda it wants enacted. It's not the peer-reviewed process that the IPCC wanted everyone to believe it used when it gave us this "settled opinion" on man-made global warming.

But the WWF isn't the only non-scientific source the IPCC used for its "facts." The article linked above also cites articles appearing in those well-known science journals "Leisure" and "Event Management." 

And the latest news out is that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- an agency previously friendly to the AGW theory -- found that water vapor in the atmosphere has more impact on earth surface temperatures than CO2 emissions.

So don't be cowed by the believers who try to silence the skeptics by ridiculing those of us whose eyes are wide open with claims (just as President Obama made in his State of the Union address) that "the science is settled." It is not. It is becoming increasingly clear that fears of man-made global warming are a colossal fraud being perpetrated to advance a very extreme political agenda.

Cap-and-tax, emissions controls, regulatory interference, reduced global competitiveness, and a reduction in our standard of living are and will be a byproduct of that agenda. So it's time we finally admit what is becoming more apparent every day: man-made global warming is a FRAUD.

Rich 

Report this comment

#2) On January 30, 2010 at 10:03 AM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

Land opportunities for David:

Maldives, Tonga, Tuvalu, Kiribati, The Marshall Islands.

David, you are very convinced that people's integrity is corrupted by their employer.

I tried to explain this before, and rival bloggers scoffed at me.  If I pay a scientist, oh let's say.... $22.6 million to study global warming, that scientist works for me.  He or she is now biased.

I have long believed that a people will reflect their own character in their generalizations of others. "Everybody Lies" says the liar. "Everybody Steals" says the thief. "Everybody's for sale" says the sellout.

Who pays you? 

Report this comment

#3) On January 30, 2010 at 10:07 AM, whereaminow (58.64) wrote:

Rich,

I don't have the link off-hand, but that IPCC paper also cited Greenpeace as a source. Again, if that's the direction they want to go, fine, but don't scoff at us for being un-scientific when you present work from Greenpeace and the WWF as peer reviewed science.

David in Qatar

Report this comment

#4) On January 30, 2010 at 10:07 AM, blesto (31.71) wrote:

The CRU emails, poor temperature set quality, unsatisfactory computer model programming, massaged and manipulated data, and outright lying and evading information requests.... all this does not mean that anthropogenic global warming is false. 

Interesting you said that. I'm definately no scientist but I do believe the globe is cycling through a warming trend, man made or not. Even so, predicting the climate is like predicting the stock market. Some catalyst could occur sending us into a mini ice age.

Also how do honest scientists avoid the funding trap that can make them bias?

Report this comment

#5) On January 30, 2010 at 10:12 AM, whereaminow (58.64) wrote:

devoish,

Finally, you are learning. You are now a skeptic. Welcome aboard.

Although now we have to teach you the difference between bias and lack of character. But it's ok. We've been at this for a year now.  You'll get there one day.

I would have been pleased if you made the logical leap to Everybody is Biased so David what is your Bias?  But I guess baby steps, right?

I have outlined my Bias many times before.  I am biased for the case of liberty and freedom.  I am biased against the expansion of State control.  My bias is rooted in my study of history and economics.  

David in Qatar

Report this comment

#6) On January 30, 2010 at 10:14 AM, whereaminow (58.64) wrote:

blesto,

I think making them accountable would help, rather than rewarding them with praise, lofty awards and more funding.  Jail time would be an imperfect, but welcome solution for those that acted intentionally fraudulent.

David in Qatar

Report this comment

#7) On January 30, 2010 at 10:20 AM, starbucks4ever (99.56) wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if he were caught lying. The Nobel Peace Prize has long ago degenerated into a Western analogy of the Lenin award for distinguished party functionaries. Heck, if Kissinger won the Peace prize for saying the we can't win the Vietnam war but should continue it anyway because it would be too embarrassing for us to withdraw, then why not give the prize to Pacharui as well? Next to Kissinger, Arafat, Gorbachev, Gore, and Obama, he would look relatively honest, don't you think?

Report this comment

#8) On January 30, 2010 at 10:21 AM, blesto (31.71) wrote:

You'd have to be careful. Making them a martyr could strengthen their agenda.

And who would be able and willing to enforce a fraud conviction?

Report this comment

#9) On January 30, 2010 at 10:41 AM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

David,  

Finally, you are learning. You are now a skeptic. Welcome aboard.

I have always been a "skeptic". It is you I don't believe.

Who pays you?

Report this comment

#10) On January 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

TMFCop,

What would you have to see to begin to believe the AGW believers are correct?

Report this comment

#11) On January 30, 2010 at 10:48 AM, whereaminow (58.64) wrote:

blesto,

Well, that's the thing about State work vs. Private work.  In the private market there is a very effective mechanism for keeping people honest (at least, when the government doesn't interfere.) It's bankruptcy and fines.  In the Government, what do they get?  Nothing. Maybe a promotion.  Government has a bad habit of incentivizing the worst elements of human behavior.

I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist, and I know I'm a minority. It's ok.  But I believe strongly that people are both good and evil, and the best, most moral thing to do is to attempt to reward the good and punish the evil  I believe the market does that.  I belive the State does the opposite.  That's just the way it goes.

And no, there is no utopia. Just life. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment

#12) On January 30, 2010 at 11:01 AM, whereaminow (58.64) wrote:

Ah so the unasked question.

Where is the Bias in the private market?

It's the consumer's bias that matters.  I'll leave you with that for now.  I'm going to India tomorrow night and I need to go out and get some things for the trip.   

Take care.

David in Qatar

Report this comment

#13) On January 30, 2010 at 11:25 AM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

C,mon David,

I asked where is your bias.

Didn't you already tell us you are programmer for the oil industry in Qatar?

Report this comment

#14) On January 30, 2010 at 11:52 AM, TMFCop (84.11) wrote:

devoish,

At this point, I'm not sure they can convince me. ;>

Actually, it's not that I think man's actions don't have an impact I'm just thoroughly convinced it's not the primary reason for whatever warming we're seeing. It's an historically recurring event and as seems to be more and more the case it's naturally occurring forces that are at play.

The problem arises when politics gets injected into the debate. How you can keep out biases (on both sides) I'm not sure, but I know that when institutions, groups, and individuals with a decided political agenda trying to impose their will using "science" as a means to achieve an end, my defense mechanisms go up.

Rich

Report this comment

#15) On January 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM, TMFCop (84.11) wrote:

David,

"I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist, and I know I'm a minority." 

Well, there's at least two of us here then. 

Rich 

Report this comment

#16) On January 30, 2010 at 12:24 PM, eddietheinvestor (< 20) wrote:

David,

A great post.  You are very insightful.  It is a shame that you have to put up with some ad hominem attacks on your posts.

Global warming "scientists" have been caught fudging their data to show their hockey stick theories, suppressing any different viewpoints, coercing others not to allow scientists to present research that doesn't support global warming theories, trying to destroy the careers of scientists who disagree with them, destroying their own data before it can be reviewed, being off by hundreds of years about Himalayan glaciers (and lying about when he knew he was wrong, etc.) Even Al Gore has refused to debate or have discussions with anyone who disagrees with him, comparing anyone who disagrees with him to Nazi Holocaust deniers.  So much for free speech and intellectual debate.

 Yet the Nobel Prize keeps getting awarded based not on achievement but on whether people follow a left-wing agenda.  The Nobel Prize is now trivialized and worthless--a mere joke.  It's amazing that President Obama is sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, yet he wins the Nobel Peace Prize.  What other president won a Peace Prize while fighting two wars?

I agree with you, David, about scientists being bought.  It happens all the time.  If a scientist takes government money, such as $2 million, and doesn't concoct the findings that the government wants, that person will never get another grant or another cent.  There is an understanding that the money is for achieving a certain, predetermined result. The same thing happened with the pomegranate industry, where scientists now say that pomegranates are extremely healthy to consume--based on research by scientists who were funded with millions of dollars paid for by pomegranate growers.

Report this comment

#17) On January 30, 2010 at 12:44 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

TMFCop,

 I'm not sure, but I know that when institutions, groups, and individuals with a decided political agenda trying to impose their will using "science" as a means to achieve an end, my defense mechanisms go up.

Leaving the science aside for the moment, this statements seems tio make the assumption that politics is driving the science, as opposed to science driving the politics. Why do you believe that?

Report this comment

#18) On January 30, 2010 at 1:15 PM, RainierMan (38.26) wrote:

Welcome to the world of science; not every study is conclusive. Not all scientists are good. Sometimes scientists care too much about getting a certain result.

Are you suggesting that this only happens on one side of the argument? Did you forget that Bush withheld government research reports because he didn't like the result? Are you suggesting that the HUGE amount of corporate interest in getting certain results (ie, failure to show warming) doesn't influence arguments/studies on the issue? I think we know that's not true. The corporate money against the warming argument is huge, and corporate money usually wins. 

Pointless to debate the actual data in this forum because nobody will believe the other guys data, But the notion that because there have been some recent "black eyes" for the climate change argument does not make the ENTIRE argument invalid just because people with a political agenda say so.

But to all those who don't believe in global warming; relax. There isn't going to be any meaningful effort of stop it. People would only respond when disaster is upon them, and it will be too late by then. You guys will win. It's really clear to me that the political will to actually do anything is not there. I will continue to vote my conscience, but the writing is on the wall; my vote won't matter on this one. 

Report this comment

#19) On January 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, cthomas1017 (39.66) wrote:

devoish,

I am completely independent of any association with any energy, government, or interest in global warming.  The facts that global warming "leaders" have engaged in fraud & deception is beyond dispute.  When facts support those that take a side, even if they are financially tied to an entity that has an interest in those facts, does not make those facts wrong.

There are plenty of places where the energy industry has engaged in fraud or deception, but global warming doesn't seem to be one of them.

 In my mind, I don't care if David's is paid by the oil industry as long as the facts support his case.  So far, I have yet to discover any falsehood in anything he has represented.  If anyone can find where his data, rationale, or conclusions are false, I'm ready to weigh that into the equation.  And I suppose you're the prime candidate to do just.

It is my opinion that focusing on David's affiliations exclusively without disputing any of his facts doesn't put your case in the best of light.  I'd be much more inclined to question David's motivations if there someone could point to any part of his position as being false.

Is David biased?  Sure.  (But then so am I.)  Does bias have anything to do with being correct or incorrect?  Not in my mind.

There's an old adage in the practice of law that seems to hold here...

When facts don't support you, argue the law.

When the law doesn't support you, attack your opponent's character.

One the surface, that seems to be your approach.  I don't mean that to be attacking or confrontational.  That's just the way I perceive what's happening. 

Report this comment

#20) On January 30, 2010 at 1:44 PM, whereaminow (58.64) wrote:

I'm in the aviation industry, not the oil industry.  But I do work as a computer systems engineer.  My trade has absolutely no direct correlation to my company's interest.  I don't know the first thing about planes.

I blog a lot, and I say some rather radical things.  The company that I do work for would probably appreciate it if I did not mention them, for association purposes.  Much in the same way as... "the opinions expressed here are solely.... yadda yadda.."

David in Qatar

Report this comment

#21) On January 30, 2010 at 1:53 PM, danteps (30.01) wrote:

I have no idea whether humans are causing the warming of the planet.  However, some of us are smart enough to "follow the money".  Al Gore and his followers are simply ambling along the yellow brick road . . . yellow bricks of gold. 

Socialist politics at their corrupt finest.  Al Gore is simply profiting by suckling at the public teat.  Smart business man, much like a tele-evangelist, he has found the opiate of many people.  It disgusts many of us.  One is entitled to make a fair profit, but not with taxpayer dollars. 

 Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.

The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy as Mr Gore. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.

Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming sceptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world's first "carbon billionaire," profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, has claimed that Mr Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.

Mr Gore had said that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

"Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?" Mr. Gore said. "I am proud of it. I am proud of it."

Corrupt SOB. 

 

Report this comment

#22) On January 30, 2010 at 1:55 PM, ajm101 (33.71) wrote:

Hey cthomas, how about this?  This is the actual article in question that the IPCC report cited in chapter 4: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221893.000-flooded-out.html

So the New Scientist is wrong.  And the IPCC was wrong not to rely on second hand reports on research.  That's why they apologized and retracted that part of the report.  However, this does not constitute 'fraud', it is citation of an incorrect source.  The article (from 1999) clearly stated that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035... so your issue is with Fred Pearce, whoever that is.

Honestly, I feel sorry for you for being so easily duped by a misinformation campaign.  Partisanship is so easy to exploit...

Report this comment

#23) On January 30, 2010 at 2:21 PM, ajm101 (33.71) wrote:

danteps, your outrage seems highly selective.  I recall lots of people making the fair point that the KBR contracts in the Iraq War were appropriate because they were a highly qualified subcontractor.  Just googling Silver Spring Networks quickly, it appears that they just had an oversubscribed $100M round of funding on top of $150M of existing funding.  Klein Perkins, Northgate, and Google were in the list of investors. If anything, this makes Al Gore look pretty astute.  Looks like Silver Springs Networks are in smart grids (Barclays had a nice research note on the sector recently, and ENOC popped on it), and have competitors that utilities are free to choose (Itron being the largest I know of, but a company called Trilliant came up and Cisco apparently intends to enter the space).  Anyway, they didn't get any direct grants, the utilities did, and they are free to partner with any company they want.

Report this comment

#24) On January 30, 2010 at 2:41 PM, angusthermopylae (41.33) wrote:

Who pays you?

I don't know about whereaminow, but no one pays me...at all...*sob*

So I guess that just makes my opnions your standard, run-of-the-mill fringe whacko anti-whatever extremist.

Between the glacier mistake and the analyses that Britain physically can't make the AGW goals everyone is calling for(impossible amounts of money, time, resources, and industry), I'm pretty sure that this entire episode will burn out completely within 10 years...

...with Flying Spaghetti Monster-only knows how much wasted time, money, and lives in the end.

Report this comment

#25) On January 30, 2010 at 3:59 PM, danteps (30.01) wrote:

Pointing out that Al Gore and his cronies manipulate Washington to provide government grants for an industry / indistries in which his companies benefit is not highly selective outrage.  Simply a summary of facts.  We could certainly point out a plentitude of examples, I just chose one in the interest of time.

I work in VC, so I know the tricks of the trade.  Lobbying probably has the highest return on capital of any business activity.  A talking head starts talking about "green jobs" and many of the ignorant masses nod their collective heads. Congress appropriates our money because they know how best to plan our economy.  Taxpayers foot the bill and Al Gore, Kleiner Perkins, etc. get rich.  It's simply a transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to the slickest lobbyist.  I have taken rides on the private planes and spent time with the "smartest guys in the room". 

You know what makes them really clever?  Bribing Washington or Sacramento.  If you can promise green energy jobs, wow, you are going to make a fortune.  Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for green jobs or other totatlitarian dictates from our now planned economy. 

I wish smart grid technologies the best of luck as I would many investment opportunities.  The taxpayer only asks that the playing field be leveled and the companies make a profit without taxpayer funding.  Let the free market decide, not a government dictator.  Or perhaps we could have the taxpayer vote on whether we should be robbed to pay for more expensive energy alternatives.

When we pay more for something (e.g. energy) it takes money away from other areas of our economy.  Economics 101.   Most of us would rather use cheap fossil fuels and spend the extra money as individuals see best.

Bush and Cheney expanded the military industrial complex for their buddies.  Now Obama and Pelosi are pumping money into green energy for their buddies.  Al Gore et al laugh all the way to the bank.

Report this comment

#26) On January 30, 2010 at 4:08 PM, TMFCop (84.11) wrote:

devoish,

I don't think it's a chicken or the egg situation, whether science is driving the politics or the other way around. I think they parallel one another. Let's remember that during the 70's it was global cooling that was cause du jour, and science and activists were also working hand in glove.

Rich

Report this comment

#27) On January 30, 2010 at 4:21 PM, ajm101 (33.71) wrote:

danteps - totally fair point about whether the DOE should be making these grants at all.  I think they should, the US grid is needs to be modernized and it's in the public interest to do so.  However, even before these grants were on the horizon, utilities were updating their grids.   Maybe the energy companies lobbied Washington to help foot the bill.  Anyway, since they were spending their own money on it prior to the grants, it clearly has ROI, and the sooner it's done the more efficient (ie, less costly) the grid will be and you'll be able to spend all your share of the savings on whatever the heck it is you want.

Report this comment

#28) On January 30, 2010 at 4:53 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

cthomas1017,

Thank you for holding me to that standard. In this post in one reply all I have done is question David's integrity, but then he is going full bore questioning integrity as is typical of his posts. Now hold David and the skeptics to that same standard. Please remind us again every time David posts and tells we cannot trust "scientists" who work for the government, because they work for the government that that is not an "ad hominem" attack. Please remind us about "ad hominem" attacks again when David tells us we must disregard the scientists at RealClimate.org or Climateprogress.org because he believes they have a vested interest or hidden agenda that favors them lying about climate change AND has told us in another post we should not listen to them defend themselves from ad-hominem attacks.

Now, having settled that argument, we can visit the scientists at Realclimate.org and Climateprogress.org and NOAA and decide if their arguments defending their science and process make sense.

But first, since David is playing on the consensus is settled claim with his title that the "falsification is settled" let's examine the argument made by skeptics that "there is no consensus", or "Al Gore is lying when he says there is consensus", or "consensus melting". because frankly, that issue seems to represent most of the actual original research done by skeptics.

The argument against "consensus" goes something like this. "There is no consensus because 30,000 scientists signed a paper that says they doubt global warming". And the number 30,000 gets repeated and repeated and repeated. But the science done by those 30,000 scientists never gets examined. And that number never gets put into context in the skeptics articles. Does that number represent half of the USA's scientists, or one third, or one quarter, or .24%? And at what point can Al Gore claim "consensus" and not be a liar? Does he need 100%? You cannot get 100% on anything. 99%? 95%, 85%? What is good enough that Al Gore is not a liar? There are almost 13,000,000 scientists in the USA. So every time I am shown a source that tells me 30,000 scientists, because they did not also share the information that ther are 13,000,000 scientists, I think they have the agenda. They certainly are not telling me all the relevant information. This might be considered evidence of manipulating data worse than what the climate scientists are accused of doing. And it is being done by the skeptics. Also it might be relevant that of those 30,000, only 12% are climate scientists and they represent less than 1% of all climate scientists. So it is consensus, and not a lie, skeptics claims to the contrary.  http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-consensus-among-scientists/ 

Now David has relentlessly beaten the "lying Gov't drum" on this and every issue, and you're challenging me to discuss the science. Let me point out that David's argument in this blog is that the scientist lied and global warming is disproved.

The discussion could have been: "The glaciers aren't melting as fast as thought, does that mean Global warming is not happening"?

David made it this blog an "ad hominem" attack, not me.

Want to play "glacier scence"? You will not find a single "skeptic" source that spends more time on glacial melting science than on the character attacks. And that is as easy a clue as to who has their facts right as you will ever find.

Look at Eddies post. No science, just attacks. look at Davids post. No discussion of the science, just attacks. look at danteps post, no science, just "follow the money" to Al Gore, not even the oil or coal industrys.

Thanks for holding me to the higher standard of discussing the science.

 

Report this comment

#29) On January 30, 2010 at 7:46 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

TMFCop.

Let's remember that during the 70's it was global cooling that was cause du jour, and science and activists were also working hand in glove.

Maybe. It my be useful to investigate the truth to that tale. Perhaps we could start by figuring which scientist made such a claim, in what peer reviewed journal, and how it was resolved.

If it were true, and I don't think it was, that science (consensus science or just a couple of scientists?) made the claim that the earth was cooling, a person might wonder how that opinion was reversed. Possibly through measuring temperatures in the real world, by real evidence based scientists?

I think if you will investigate that claim, you will find that scientists were weighing CO2 warming vs. smog and other pollutants causing cooling. I thnk you will also find that every recognised scientific body also concluded, not that the earth was warming or cooling, but that more data and evidence needed to be collected.

I think you will also find that the science has driven the politics, at least for the "consensus".

A man named Spencer Weart held the position of Director of the Center for the History of Physics in the 1970's. His biography says he is trained in physics. He was a man with an interest in physics and history, until he wrote a few books and this website concerning the history of Global warming science. Then he became part of the plot.

The way Mr Weart tells it, science was forming its opinions based upon evidence, and the science egg came before the political chicken.

Report this comment

#30) On January 30, 2010 at 8:27 PM, danteps (30.01) wrote:

Thank you Devoish for the compliment.  If you follow the money trail, one shall be revealed the truth. 

I am not here to debate the science, because the majority of us don't know fact from fiction.  Including your pompous conjectures.  All the majority of us ask is for zero government spending on green jobs, green energy and the like.  If citizens want to spend there own money and invest in the area, then I wish them the best of luck. 

The taxpayers shouldn't pay for science projects.  I see this everyday in my job & I see the waste, I see how scientists cling to their ideas because it gives them grants, labs, papers, noteriety, the ability to sit on scientific advisory boards and collect stipends, many get founders shares in companies and the list goes on and on and on.  Shockingly - many are in it for the money!

It may come as a revelation, but "scientists" are human and act in there own self-interest. 

GE is the number one spending corporation on green energy lobbying?  I am shocked to find gambling in this casino!  Oh they make wind turbines and other "green" technologies.  It's all business.  The science has been bought and paid for . . . on both sides of the debate.

Here is my suggestion.  All supporters of green energy invest their own money to support these efforts.  The taxpayer pays zero.  When you make it cheaper and better you will make a handsome profit.  Best of luck. 

Report this comment

#31) On January 30, 2010 at 9:07 PM, TopAustrianFool (84.61) wrote:

As a scientist whose been studying the litterature of global warming for the last 10 yrs, my opinion is that it is none-sense. Most scientist are too dependent on govt funding, which is controlled by mediocre scientist-turned-politicians and administrators, to risk future funding by disputing publically junk science. We just move on into something we feel is good science and ignore the press. If you ask me, the way to solve this, is by cutting govt supported scientific funding. Then you'll get rid of the bad scientist, for the most part. But all you hear scientist say is that we need more funding for science. So that we can continue competing. This another man-made crisis.

Report this comment

#32) On January 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, FleaBagger (32.74) wrote:

David,

"I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist, and I know I'm a minority." 

Well, there's at least two of us here then. 

Rich

Three now.

Report this comment

#33) On January 30, 2010 at 11:21 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

What do you think Rich?

danteps seems to think because he does not know the science bhind Global warming, that the scientists should behave like they don't know. I also think he is wrong about what the majority of us think. I think if global warming is not manmade, people would like to not do anything. I think if global warming is manmade, I think people will be demanding Gov't step up or whining how Gov't failed when they didn't.

Just like with the SEC. Five years ago it was "don't regulate". Now it's "why didn't you regulate" from the same voices.

Then you have Topsecret who claims to be a scientist and says he has been "studying the literature of global warming for the last ten years", says it is nonsense and then offer a political justification for that opinion. Thanks for nothing.

I think we can figure out if glaciers are melting or not. I think we can figure out that glaciers might advance for one or two years if snowfall is heavy, and retreat if it is light. I think we can figure out if they are retreating long term, precipitation is lower long term, or the planet is warmer long term. I think we can figure out that some glaciers advance and retreat faster than others. I think we can figure out that just because Glacier National Park used to have over 150 glaciers and now has only 29 that it means Glacier National Park is either drying or warming, not the whole world. I think we can figure out that if most of the glaciers in North America and Australia, and the Himilayas and Europe, and the ice sheets of Greenland and the Arctic and Antartica are all doing more melting than advancing it is safe to say the Globe is warming.

And if over the last twenty years, all the theorys for all the other reasons, from milankovitch cycles, to sunspots and solar radiation have not stood up to peer review and only CO2 has, then we can figure out it is manmade.

All of those theorys have been peer reviewed and have not stood up. Or as eddiethe investor says, "suppressing disagreeing research" "destroying dissenters careers". While demanding the head of the IPCC for letting something not peer reviewed, slip into a 900 page report. A mistake for sure, but still political arguments, not a discussion of whether or not glaciers are melting.

Look at your WWF links. There is no arguing the science or the evidence. It is an article attacking the WWF as biased. But I have been assured by cthomas that such an "ad hominem" attack is a weak argument.

Is there a better source for the WWF information? Is there any other source? Is there anybody else in the whole world who cared enough to go look besides the WWF? If not, they are the expert.

You also wrote that the NOAA was "previously friendly" to AGW theory. There is nothing in the WSJ article to suggest they no longer are. Perhaps a visit to the NOAA website will shed some light since they are being considered an expert when it is believed they no longer support AGW theory.

Since 2000, water vapor in the stratosphere decreased by about 10 percent. The reason for the recent decline in water vapor is unknown. The new study used calculations and models to show that the cooling from this change caused surface temperatures to increase about 25 percent more slowly than they would have otherwise, due only to the increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Looks like NOAA have rejoined the conspiracy. Or just genuinely believe that CO2 is causing global warming.

How about it? Have I dented the shell?

Report this comment

#34) On January 31, 2010 at 6:54 AM, whereaminow (58.64) wrote:

The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

From the UK Telegraph

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information. 

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.

It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC's report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

Sceptics have seized upon the mistakes to cast doubt over the validity of the IPCC and have called for the panel to be disbanded.

This week scientists from around the world leapt to the defence of the IPCC, insisting that despite the errors, which they describe as minor, the majority of the science presented in the IPCC report is sound and its conclusions are unaffected.

But some researchers have expressed exasperation at the IPCC's use of unsubstantiated claims and sources outside of the scientific literature.

Professor Richard Tol, one of the report's authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: "These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.

"Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.

"There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense."

The IPCC report, which is published every six years, is used by government's worldwide to inform policy decisions that affect billions of people.

The claims about disappearing mountain ice were contained within a table entitled "Selected observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming".

It states that reductions in mountain ice have been observed from the loss of ice climbs in the Andes, Alps and in Africa between 1900 and 2000.

The report also states that the section is intended to "assess studies that have been published since the TAR (Third Assessment Report) of observed changes and their effects".

But neither the dissertation or the magazine article cited as sources for this information were ever subject to the rigorous scientific review process that research published in scientific journals must undergo.

The magazine article, which was written by Mark Bowen, a climber and author of two books on climate change, appeared in Climbing magazine in 2002. It quoted anecdotal evidence from climbers of retreating glaciers and the loss of ice from climbs since the 1970s.

Mr Bowen said: "I am surprised that they have cited an article from a climbing magazine, but there is no reason why anecdotal evidence from climbers should be disregarded as they are spending a great deal of time in places that other people rarely go and so notice the changes."

The dissertation paper, written by professional mountain guide and climate change campaigner Dario-Andri Schworer while he was studying for a geography degree, quotes observations from interviews with around 80 mountain guides in the Bernina region of the Swiss Alps.

Experts claim that loss of ice climbs are a poor indicator of a reduction in mountain ice as climbers can knock ice down and damage ice falls with their axes and crampons.

The IPCC has faced growing criticism over the sources it used in its last report after it emerged the panel had used unsubstantiated figures on glacial melting in the Himalayas that were contained within a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report.

It can be revealed that the IPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed WWF reports.

One claim, which stated that coral reefs near mangrove forests contained up to 25 times more fish numbers than those without mangroves nearby, quoted a feature article on the WWF website.

In fact the data contained within the WWF article originated from a paper published in 2004 in the respected journal Nature.

In another example a WWF paper on forest fires was used to illustrate the impact of reduced rainfall in the Amazon rainforest, but the data was from another Nature paper published in 1999.

When The Sunday Telegraph contacted the lead scientists behind the two papers in Nature, they expressed surprise that their research was not cited directly but said the IPCC had accurately represented their work.

The chair of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri has faced mounting pressure and calls for his resignation amid the growing controversy over the error on glacier melting and use of unreliable sources of information.

A survey of 400 authors and contributors to the IPCC report showed, however, that the majority still support Mr Pachauri and the panel's vice chairs. They also insisted the overall findings of the report are robust despite the minor errors.

But many expressed concern at the use of non-peer reviewed information in the reports and called for a tightening of the guidelines on how information can be used.

The Met Office, which has seven researchers who contributed to the report including Professor Martin Parry who was co-chair of the working group responsible for the part of the report that contained the glacier errors, said: "The IPCC should continue to ensure that its review process is as robust and transparent as possible, that it draws only from the peer-reviewed literature, and that uncertainties in the science and projections are clearly expressed."

Roger Sedjo, a senior research fellow at the US research organisation Resources for the Future who also contributed to the IPCC's latest report, added: "The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organisation with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy.

"It needs to develop a more balanced and indeed scientifically sceptical behaviour pattern. The organisation tend to select the most negative studies ignoring more positive alternatives."

The IPCC failed to respond to questions about the inclusion of unreliable sources in its report but it has insisted over the past week that despite minor errors, the findings of the report are still robust and consistent with the underlying science.

Report this comment

#35) On January 31, 2010 at 6:55 AM, TopAustrianFool (84.61) wrote:

Thanks for nothing? I just gave you my opinion. You look it up for yourself. You say it is safe to say that the globe is warming, well, newsflash it is not. You can read the litterature yourself, look it up. Don't read anything that does not have references, then go look up the references and read them. Don't rely on the press or any website. Start with Richard Lindzen and/or Lake Vostok Ice cores, Go to the library at Columbia, so you have access to Sciece lit. Look at the correlation between insolation, CO2, Methane and Temp. you'll see they all lag Temp, so if GW is cause by man, who is producing CO2, why would CO2 lag Temp by 800 yrs!!! The only thing that leads Temp and all the gases is insolation.

Water vapor is the highest heat capacity green house gas, CO2 will never be able to compete with H2O.

I said it is non-sense based on the study of the litterature. I suggested that the politics of science makes it difficult for scientist to have a debate. No need for attacks, if you disagree.

Stop looking at websites and read peer reviewed litterature.  You need to read the IPCC from the 1990 to the most recent ones. You will see a trend where IPCC contradicts itself, meaning that for every claim that is taken out of context by WWF there are claims of uncertainty in the same report. Then the trends continues, where the dissenting voices start dissapearing. The WWF is an environmental group with a political agenda. Without environmental crises they will perish. Bad place to look for info.

GW advocates can't explain the cooling trends of the last 8 yrs. The models can't predict today's temperatures, so these are not validated. The tree ring Hockey stick graph has temperature data spliced to it, which is something scientist are not supposed to do, because tree ring from the warming period show cooling. The thermal raw data from UK has been destroyed. All you can claim is tha glaciers are retreating because the WWF showed you a polar bear swimming and the IPCC?

I am a scientist, but I don't claim like most scientist, that I know better and that non-scientists are too stupid to find out for themselves. I believe everyone has the intelligence to undertand the scientific litterature if they want to put the effort.

Report this comment

#36) On January 31, 2010 at 7:07 AM, TopAustrianFool (84.61) wrote:

whereaminow,

 The scam is unraveling.

Report this comment

#37) On January 31, 2010 at 7:49 AM, TopAustrianFool (84.61) wrote:

If you want to improve science, cut funding. There is so much money in it right now that there is no incentive for improve quality. Its just a race for getting more funding.

About comments on DOE and grid modernization. A long time ago govt created the utility monopolies. It destroyed competition with the excuse of universal access. Now there is no incentive to modernization, due to monopolies created by govt regulation. This is an example of govt creating a problem and then needing more money to fix it. Get the govt out of the energy industry, allow competition and you'll see how the incenive for profit will drive innovation and modernization.

Report this comment

#38) On January 31, 2010 at 8:20 AM, TopAustrianFool (84.61) wrote:

devoish,

"And at what point can Al Gore claim "consensus" and not be a liar?"

Never. I have never heard scientist claim concensus on anything. The way science works is that you have observations. Then theories are produced based on the observed phenomena. From theory comes a model that should explain the observations. But the test is that the model needs to predict the future observations or behavior also. There is no model in science that explains all phenomena, but accepted models are the ones that explains and predict the most phenomena. Once in a while there will be a better model that will come along and knock the existing model out of preeminence.

 An example would be Borh's model of the atom which explained a lot of phenomena, but not all. The Linus Pauling came along with the hybridization model, which explains and predicts more phenomena than Borh's Atom model. Nevertheless, the Hybridization model may be replaced by a better model in the future.

The same thing applies to evolution. The Intelligent Design (ID) model was preeminent until the Evolutionary model (EM) knock it out. Why? Because EM explains and predict the same and more phenomena. ie. ID does not predict or explains the use of vaccines and/or the mecanics of the immune system. Again EM also does not explain everything, at least yet, but at the moment it is the best model. Also, notice that these are not theories, these are models.

So let's debate the evidence and forget about blanket statements on  concensus. There are no accepted model in climate science because the time scales make it difficult to conduct experiments in order to confirm a model's validity. All you can do is check the model against past data and then wait if it predicts in the future. And that is the proble with GW advocacy, the models (computer or otherwise) do not predict past climate. But we are supposed to believe that they work for the future. Give me break!

 

Report this comment

#39) On January 31, 2010 at 10:30 AM, eddietheinvestor (< 20) wrote:

David,

Great article in the Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html.  Thanks, It's amazing that cap and trade bills, the federal budget, meetings with foreign leaders, the meeting in Copenhagen (which left a huge carbond footprint), and so much more are based on "scientific evidence" taken from falsified data, student papers, and mountain magazines.  Meanwhile, the US is breaking records for cold weather and snow.

TopSecret, as for your remark about Gore claiming a consensus, he can when he refuses to allow dissenting opinions.  Gore has repeatedly refused to debate anyone because he doesn't have the facts, only a Nobel Prize.

Report this comment

#40) On January 31, 2010 at 11:12 AM, TopAustrianFool (84.61) wrote:

eddietheinvestor,

Claiming concensus and refusing to debate are only 2 of the red flags that should tell people that something is not right with the whole GW advocacy.

Report this comment

#41) On January 31, 2010 at 11:54 AM, MotleyPicker (< 20) wrote:

The part of this science of climate change that amazes me most is that we have geological evidence that shows the climate previously underwent changes on a long cycle. A cycle on the order of 10,000~12,000 years from peak to trough is the figure I recall.

Yet some people believe that, withought knowing the specific causes of previous cycles, and by looking at the data collected over approximately 1/2% of such a cycle, we can determine a clear trend in the current data.

What do I believe? Increasingly less and less. I think Sherlock Holmes once was reputed to say that he believed nothing, and was unconcerned by beliefs, but only considered evidence. I don't see that enough evidence has been collected to support either camp in this debate. 

But while I don't really "believe" or take joy in beliefs, I do take great joy in humor.

I laughed when Prez. Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize, and sent in another 30,000 troops to war.

I laughed again when he fled the Copenhagen global warming summit because of a blizzard.

The opportunity for much more laughter may be on our horizon. 

Bt the evidence for that isn't clear yet.

Report this comment

#42) On January 31, 2010 at 12:54 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

Cthomas. are you out there? Care to step up and point out that this is another in an endless string of "ad hominem" attacks. Nowhere in the article does anyone go up to the glacier and find out the student or the guides are wrong. It is possible that satellite images agree with the student and the guides, or disagree. Perhaps, rather than use ad hominem attacks, David or the telegraph could go find them before they go to print.

Or not.

Overall, all across the world, glaciers and ice sheets are melting. Now bear in mind, there are some that are advancing due to local conditions such as a heavy snowfall, but overall the ice is melting.

Danteps, up in post #30 says the Gov't shouldn't fund science projects. Or to put it another way "ignorance is bliss". Ignorance is not helpful, but it is blissful. Of course since budgets are tight, we have to rely upon mountain climbers for firsthand observations, not Gov't scientists who the skeptics tell me I cannot believe anyway, because they're corrupted by greed. In fact, this plot is so huge, that I cannot believe anyone, from mountain climbers, to Gov't scientists, to photgraphers of Mt Kilimanjaro. I cannot believe the Audobon Society when they tell us birds habitats are drifting North. I cannot believe my own eyes, when Robins, that harbinger of spring in my youth, now stay in my area all year round, in ever increasing winter numbers.

"Everybody lies" says the liar.

Look at Davids Telegraph article.

Professor Richard Tol, one of the report's authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: "These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.

 He's not a climate scientist. (Thats an "ad hominem" attack, right cthomas?) Perhaps a climate scientist would have offered a more nuanced explanation than the sound byte Telegraph had room to print.

I love this part from the article, apparently they uncovered the credits.

The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.

And the uncovered anecdotal evicence was found deceitfully hidden in the section titled; The claims about disappearing mountain ice were contained within a table entitled "Selected observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming". 

I can imagine the staff meeting planning this one.

Scientist A: It would be nice to get some observed data on ice melt. Do we have 1/4 million in the budget to go up there?

Scientists B: I don't want to go up in the cold. Do you want to go up in the cold?

Scientist A: Look, our models say the ice should be melting. Just becuse satellites confirm it doesn't mean that will convince the Telegraph.

Scientist C (the cheap one): Look, I don't want to go out in the cold, and I don't want to spend money.

Scientist D (The practical one): let's get the mountain climbers and ice climbers to tell us where the glaciers end. That should only cost a phone call.

 (devoish here, laughing heartily) Some people couldn't spot efficient Government if it walked up and double smacked them in the cheekbones.

Scientist A: But these mountain climbers are not part of our super secret diabolical plot to destroy free market industry.

Scientist B: Do you think David In Qatar will notice?

Scientist A: Yeah, but he's not going to say anything.

And here is a team of "Experts" I just have to get the names of.

Experts claim that loss of ice climbs are a poor indicator of a reduction in mountain ice as climbers can knock ice down and damage ice falls with their axes and crampons.

I'm picturing hundreds of ice climbers standing shoulder to shoulder across a one mile wide face of a glacier eighty feet high with a pick-axe in one hand and a piton in the other, furiously chipping away for thirty years driving this glacier backwards 5 kilometers...

And wondering how it did not make an episode of Dirty Jobs.

Anyway David, thanks for sharing a good laugh.

Report this comment

#43) On January 31, 2010 at 1:26 PM, UKIAHED (75.02) wrote:

devoish

Experts claim that loss of ice climbs are a poor indicator of a reduction in mountain ice as climbers can knock ice down and damage ice falls with their axes and crampons.

I'm picturing hundreds of ice climbers standing shoulder to shoulder across a one mile wide face of a glacier eighty feet high with a pick-axe in one hand and a piton in the other, furiously chipping away for thirty years driving this glacier backwards 5 kilometers...

 

Yeah - that got me rolling on the floor laughing.  I've always wondered where all that bottled "glacial water" came from...

 

Report this comment

#44) On January 31, 2010 at 1:48 PM, UKIAHED (75.02) wrote:

I love the line

 “There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense."

OK – how about a couple of pictures?  One from 1928 and the comparative from 2002.  Oh wait – the 2002 picture is from Greenpeace so we cannot count it as “evidence”…

How about these pics from the Himalayas – 1968 to 2007?  Oh crap – Greenpeace did the 2007 on this one as well…

Crap - is there no one we can trust taking pictures?

How about this video with Mt. Everest as a reference?  Hmm – done by the Asia Society…must be in the employ of Al Gore…?

 

 

 

 

Report this comment

#45) On January 31, 2010 at 2:47 PM, alexxlea (34.24) wrote:

No offense but people that try to misdirect the argument towards all this warming and melting stuff are idiots.

The damage that we inflict everywhere is plainly visible to anyone with half a brain. You don't need to measure temperatures to see that we pollute and destroy resources and habitats, now do you?

 

Or do you, so that you can discredit the thermometers?

Report this comment

#46) On January 31, 2010 at 3:17 PM, TopAustrianFool (84.61) wrote:

Its official GW is a religion now... Faith based science.

Report this comment

#47) On January 31, 2010 at 3:53 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

Topsecret,

Hi.

If you want to improve science, cut funding. There is so much money in it right now that there is no incentive for improve quality. Its just a race for getting more funding.

Then they could learn to use ice climbers for observations, and not send deceitful plotting scientists at much greater expense.

They said "you're welcome".

OK. I admit it. I really did not talk to them, but I imagine that is what they would say after the laughing dies down.

I asked you when Al Gore could claim "consensus" and not be a liar. You replied:

Never. I have never heard scientist claim concensus on anything.

Interstingly enough, I've heard climate scientists claim "consensus" on CO2 causing global warming. I bet you have to.

Main Entry: con·sen·sus Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Latin, from consentireDate: 1843

1 a : general agreement : unanimity b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief

I think scientists have reached consensus. I am going to link the "information is beautiful" data showing 99% of all climatologists agree with AGW, and 99.75% of all scientists have reached consensus and agree with AGW.

Here goes.

I think scientists have reached consensus on a lot of things. Let me know if you agree.

I think science has reached a consensus that if there is more pressure under a wing than above, a plane will fly.

I think science has reached a consensus concerning the boiling point of water at sea level.

I think science has reached a consensus concerning mechanical advantage.

What consensus does not mean, is an absolute unshakable no doubt, set in stone forever truth. But in the case of climate, it does mean that 99 out of 100 scientists have reached agreement (consensus) that something extraordinary is affecting climate right now, and that something is humans dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

You also told us some additional information about science in general:

The way science works is that you have observations. Then theories are produced based on the observed phenomena. From theory comes a model that should explain the observations. But the test is that the model needs to predict the future observations or behavior also. There is no model in science that explains all phenomena, but accepted models are the ones that explains and predict the most phenomena. Once in a while there will be a better model that will come along and knock the existing model out of preeminence.

Let's use some of the information collected in this thread and it's links to see how climate science is working. Now I understand that many of you base your doubts upon the fact that many climate scientists work for the Gov't, but cthomas has assured us all that such an "ad-hominem" attack does not disprove the science, something I was very relieved to hear.

So I am going to use the history collected by Spencer Wearts as my beginning.

In 1824 a Scientist named Fourier theorized that gases in the atmosphere trapped energy from the sun and maintained the earths temperature.

In 1859 a scientist named Tyndall tested and observed that water vapor was the most important such gas because of its volume and CO2 was another.In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature. This "greenhouse effect" was only one of many speculations about climate, and not the most plausible. Scientists found technical reasons to argue that our emissions could not change the climate. Indeed most thought it was obvious that puny humanity could never affect the vast climate cycles, which were governed by a benign "balance of nature." In any case major change seemed impossible except over tens of thousands of years.

In the 1930s, people realized that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century. Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, with unknown causes. Only one lone voice, the amateur G.S. Callendar, insisted that greenhouse warming was on the way. Whatever the cause of warming, everyone thought that if it happened to continue for the next few centuries, so much the better.

In the 1950s, Callendar's claims provoked a few scientists to look into the question with improved techniques and calculations. What made that possible was a sharp increase of government funding, especially from military agencies with Cold War concerns about the weather and the seas. The new studies showed that, contrary to earlier crude estimates, carbon dioxide could indeed build up in the atmosphere and should bring warming. Painstaking measurements drove home the point in 1960 by showing that the level of the gas was in fact rising, year by year.

Topsecret, I remember you taught us: From theory comes a model that should explain the observations.

Our story continues:

Over the next decade a few scientists devised simple mathematical models of the climate, and turned up feedbacks that could make the system surprisingly variable. Others figured out ingenious ways to retrieve past temperatures by studying ancient pollens and fossil shells. It appeared that grave climate change could happen, and in the past had happened, within as little as a few centuries. This finding was reinforced by computer models of the general circulation of the atmosphere, the fruit of a long effort to learn how to predict (and perhaps even deliberately change) the weather. Calculations made in the late 1960s suggested that average temperatures would rise a few degrees within the next century. But the next century seemed far off, and the models were preliminary. Groups of scientists that reviewed the calculations found them plausible but saw no need for any policy action, aside from putting more effort into research to find out for sure what was happening.

In the early 1970s, the rise of environmentalism raised public doubts about the benefits of human activity for the planet. Curiosity about climate turned into anxious concern. Alongside the greenhouse effect, some scientists pointed out that human activity was putting dust and smog particles into the atmosphere, where they could block sunlight and cool the world. Moreover, analysis of Northern Hemisphere weather statistics showed that a cooling trend had begun in the 1940s. The mass media (to the limited extent they covered the issue) were confused, sometimes predicting a balmy globe with coastal areas flooded as the ice caps melted, sometimes warning of the prospect of a catastrophic new ice age. Study panels, first in the U.S. and then elsewhere, began to warn that one or another kind of future climate change might pose a severe threat. The only thing most scientists agreed on was that they scarcely understood the climate system, and much more research was needed. Research activity did accelerate, including huge data-gathering schemes that mobilized international fleets of oceanographic ships and orbiting satellites.

Earlier scientists had sought a single master-key to climate, but now they were coming to understand that climate is an intricate system responding to a great many influences. Volcanic eruptions and solar variations were still plausible causes of change, and some argued these would swamp any effects of human activities. Even subtle changes in the Earth's orbit could make a difference. To the surprise of many, studies of ancient climates showed that astronomical cycles had partly set the timing of the ice ages. Apparently the climate was so delicately balanced that almost any small perturbation might set off a great shift. According to the new "chaos" theories, in such a system a shift might even come all by itself — and suddenly. Support for the idea came from ice cores arduously drilled from the Greenland ice sheet. They showed large and disconcertingly abrupt temperature jumps in the past.

Greatly improved computer models began to suggest how such jumps could happen, for example through a change in the circulation of ocean currents. Experts predicted droughts, storms, rising sea levels, and other disasters. A few politicians began to suspect there might be a public issue here. However, the modelers had to make many arbitrary assumptions about clouds and the like, and reputable scientists disputed the reliability of the results. Others pointed out how little was known about the way living ecosystems interact with climate and the atmosphere. They argued, for example, over the effects of agriculture and deforestation in adding or subtracting carbon dioxide from the air. One thing the scientists agreed on was the need for a more coherent research program. But the research remained disorganized, and funding grew only in irregular surges. The effort was dispersed among many different scientific fields, each with something different to say about climate change.

One unexpected discovery was that the level of certain other gases was rising, which would add seriously to global warming. Some of these gases also degraded the atmosphere's protective ozone layer, and the news inflamed public worries about the fragility of the atmosphere. Moreover, by the late 1970s global temperatures had begun to rise again. Many climate scientists had become convinced that the rise was likely to continue as greenhouse gases accumulated. By around 2000, some predicted, an unprecedented global warming would become apparent.

Let's stop to pause here, and remember that everything we've read so far happened in the 1970's or earlier. 

Our story continues:

Their worries first caught wide public attention in the summer of 1988, the hottest on record till then. (Most since then have been hotter.) International panels of experts began to warn that the world should take active steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But the many scientific uncertainties, and the sheer complexity of climate, made for vehement debate over what actions, if any, governments should take. Corporations and individuals who opposed all government regulation spent many millions of dollars on lobbying, advertising, and "reports" that mimicked scientific publications, in an effort to convince people that there was no problem at all. Environmental groups, less wealthy but more enthusiastic, helped politicize the issue with urgent cries of alarm.

Hey. That's what TMFcop was talking about. I wonder if that lends an smidge of accuracy to this source.

Once again we are reminded of the teachings of Topsecret:

There is no model in science that explains all phenomena, but accepted models are the ones that explains and predict the most phenomena.

Our story continues:

Scientists intensified their research, organizing programs on an international scale. Was the global temperature rise due to an increase in the Sun’s activity? Solar activity began to decline, but the temperature soared faster than ever. Did computer models reproduce the present climate only because they were tweaked until they matched it, making them worthless for calculating a climate change? Improved models successfully predicted the temporary cooling due to a huge volcanic explosion in 1991 and passed many other tests. In particular, the calculated pattern of warming in different regions of the world over the past century matched the observed pattern — but only if a model included the rise of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The most striking news came from studies of ancient climates recorded in Antarctic ice cores and elsewhere. Carbon dioxide and temperature had always been linked: anything that caused one of the pair to rise or fall would lead to a rise or fall in the other.

Meanwhile the world’s governments created a panel to give them the most reliable possible advice, as negotiated among thousands of climate experts and officials. By 2001 this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) managed to establish a consensus, phrased so cautiously that scarcely any expert or government representative dissented. They announced that although the climate system was so complex that scientists would never reach complete certainty, it was much more likely than not that our civilization faced severe global warming. At that point the discovery of global warming was essentially completed. Scientists knew the most important things about how the climate could change during the 21st century. How the climate would actually change now depended chiefly on what policies humanity would choose for its greenhouse gas emissions.

And so we arrive at the year 2001. Mr Wearts has since updated his history.

(These essays originally ended with the developments of mid 2001, but I have made annual updates. Be warned that this introduces distortions that cannot be avoided in doing a sort of journalism without the perspective of history.)(2*)

In the next section there are two major ideas to latch on to. One, only a small fraction of the predicted warming had happened so far, - but I remind you that Topsecret still tells us to use the best available models -  effects were already becoming visible in some regions — more deadly heat waves, stronger floods and droughts, the spread of tropical diseases and the decline of sensitive species. And two, that even though the measured warming has been at the bottom of the models predictions the scientists who had been predicting for decades that by 2000 the world would be significantly warmer were now obviously correct.

In Davids Telegraph article we learn that ice climbers, who are not Gov't corrupted scientists we cannot trust, have observed one of the predicted effects of global warming models, just as Topsecret says we should demand of science. The ice is melting, and they have to walk further up the mountain to get to the ice they want to climb.

Of course it is remotely possible that the ice climbers are the evil Gov't scientist's henchmen, and have spent the last thirty years chipping away five miles of glaciers in order to convince the sheeple of a global warming hoax as supposed by the Telegraph's unnamed "experts".

But I'm skeptical.

And so, our story continues:

Since 2001, greatly improved computer models and an abundance of data of many kinds strengthened the conclusion that human emissions are very likely to cause serious climate change. The IPCC's conclusions were reviewed and endorsed by the national science academies of every major nation from the United States to China, along with leading scientific societies and indeed virtually every organization that could speak for a scientific consensus. Specialists meanwhile improved their understanding of some less probable but more severe possibilities. On the one hand, a dangerous change in ocean circulation seemed unlikely in the next century or two. On the other hand, there were signs that disintegrating ice sheets could raise sea levels faster than most scientists had expected. Worse, new evidence suggested that the warming was itself starting to cause changes that would generate still more warming.

In 2007 the IPCC reported that scientists were more confident than ever that humans were changing the climate. Although only a small fraction of the predicted warming had happened so far, effects were already becoming visible in some regions — more deadly heat waves, stronger floods and droughts, the spread of tropical diseases and the decline of sensitive species. (See the summary of expected impacts.) But the scientists had not been able to narrow the range of possibilities. Depending on what steps people took to restrict emissions, by the end of the century we could expect the planet’s average temperature to rise anywhere between about 1.4 and 6°C (2.5 - 11°F).

Some people feared that the IPCC was too conservative; they insisted on emergency measures to avoid the risk of catastrophe if temperatures rose to the upper end of the projected range or even beyond. Others insisted that the IPCC was wholly mistaken; there was no need to worry. They pointed to a minority of scientists (scarcely any of them known for contributions to climate science) who held to the old conviction that human activity was too feeble to sway natural systems. Distrust of the climate experts was encouraged by corporations and political interests that opposed any government interference in the economy.

That was a political statement. I would judge as accurate in my own experience and confirmed by TMFCop.

Our story continues:

However, the scientists who had been predicting for decades that by 2000 the world would be significantly warmer were now obviously correct. Science reporters, business leaders, government advisers and others increasingly believed them. An ever larger number of individuals, corporate entities, and government agencies at every level decided that something had to be done. They found that effective steps could be taken at surprisingly little cost, and many began to take them. (For a short summary of ideas on what we can do, see my personal note.)

Anyway, please enjoy Mr Wearts website, where the entirety of the Scientific plot to destroy human civilization while keeping the grant money flowing is fully revealed in all its gory detail.

Thank you for reading.

Report this comment

#48) On January 31, 2010 at 4:11 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

Ukiahed

love the line

 “There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense."

OK – how about a couple of pictures?  One from 1928 and the comparative from 2002.  Oh wait – the 2002 picture is from Greenpeace so we cannot count it as “evidence”…

 

How about these pics from the Himalayas – 1968 to 2007?  Oh crap – Greenpeace did the 2007 on this one as well…

Crap - is there no one we can trust taking pictures?

 

How about this video with Mt. Everest as a reference?  Hmm – done by the Asia Society…must be in the employ of Al Gore…?

 

Ukaihed,

You are so close on this one but still 100% correct.

I'm betting that the current guides and climbers did not make the claim that they had personally observed 100 years of melting glaciers at all.

I'm betting it is only the Telegraph saying they did.

I'm betting the guides helped find the pictures you talked about, and possibly gave second hand accounts of where the guides who came before them said the glaciers ended.

Report this comment

#49) On January 31, 2010 at 5:19 PM, harvandtara (97.01) wrote:

More Snow and colder temps this winter? Not! Global warming... global cooling... climate change... whatever. It is what it is, money controls it all and doesn't give a damn about the weather. One thing for sure? Glaciers are melting. why? Because it's warmer for longer periods of time than it has been recently. If you doubt that, you spend WAY too much time inside.

Do any of you have a glacier you've visited and know over your lifetimes? How often do you ski and for how many years have you skied the same area? Things are changing, and have been since before recorded history, and will continue to do so. I want to know what stocks to buy, I already know how to prepare for, and dress for, changing weather. 

I've been an outdoor professional for 20+ years, guiding mountain and river trips around the world. I have, and can, see the change with my own two eyes. What can we do? Do we really care? From experience I can say we don't really care as a species. So now I want to know how to make money, I've already tried to make a difference and I'm tired of being healthy and poor. I want to sit inside in front of the computer and make some money. I'm buying some water related stocks, and maybe some mining, oil and virgin timber/ paper stock. If you can't beat'em join'em. 

Report this comment

#50) On January 31, 2010 at 6:54 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

harvandtara,

You could buy pall or ccc if you like water filtering.

Report this comment

#51) On January 31, 2010 at 7:20 PM, TopAustrianFool (84.61) wrote:

devoish,

 Your narrative is great, but it is not science. Its is some one's view of how specific evidence fits to their preconceived notions. You need to go to the peer-revied journals and see also the contracdictory evidence. The models do not predict past or present climate. It is there in the sci litterature!

You put up a good fight, you seem quite educated and I believe you are well read. But you are "filling your bookcase with the wrong books." I know that the peer-riviewed litterature can seem overwhelming at first. So start by looking up BJorn Longborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist, it has a lot of data and references, which you can then seek for yourself. You will see how the studies cited by Greenpeace and WWF are taken out of context and many times contradict AGW. If this does not convince you, nothing will.

 Otherwise, we will have to agree to disagree. Cheers!

Report this comment

#52) On January 31, 2010 at 11:58 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

Topsecret,

Its is some one's view of how specific evidence fits to their preconceived notions.

No. It is a story of how evidence guided understanding.

Thanks for the nice words. Mr. Wearts narrative is the history of global warming science. I'm glad you enjoyed reading it. You skeptics seem to spend more time and words on the Gov't plot to destroy mankind than you do on the science. Those who believe in Global warming usually spend their time on explaing the science. I will never be convinced by you unless you can match the science.

BJorn Longborg's book or not, the climate scientists who agree AGW is real outnumber the skeptics 99/1

You skeptics have had just as much opportunity to create a better model. Without it, you are reading the wrong book.

Right now, the best available model says we need to leave the coal in the ground.

And Bjorn Lomborg agrees that AGW is real (I've seen his writing before but I did not remember his name).

He wants to find the cheapest solutions to AGW. We all want that, and he probably has some of them.

He also recognizes that politicians made empty promises in Copenhagen about cutting GHG emissions. He thinks it would be better if they had made empty promises about funding solar energy research instead.

Report this comment

#53) On February 01, 2010 at 7:43 AM, TopAustrianFool (84.61) wrote:

See?... I could tell that you are well read. I have been convinced by the long term data, like those from Ice cores, that show cooling and warming trends over 400k yrs, that its is difficult for human contributions to make a difference. I don't necessarily agree with Lomborg's conclusions but his books are packed with references and that is all you need to make your own mind. Which it seems you have.

I will say that it is not a conspiracy. It is just the system of incentives in science, coupled with the long term education and high risks that scientists have to deal with, what makes it difficult for the counter point to be aired. So the problem with AGW is not the scientists that advocate for it, it is the scientist that would offer a counter to AGW do not get funded, so its difficult to know how many there are. It is not hard to have 99% of climatologists agree with AGW if you do not fund anything else. Then you have the next generation of scientist doing their PhDs funded only to do AGW studies. So it is more of a "Group Think" than a conspiracy.

Report this comment

#54) On February 01, 2010 at 7:51 AM, TopAustrianFool (84.61) wrote:

Also... What you saw play out with the e-mail scandal is nothing more than the human nature as related to power, Once these scientist have gotten used to not being challenged, their main purpose has become to maintain their political/scientific power. Obviously, they don't see this as a problem since they do believe they are right. These scientist essentially have enjoyed a monopoly in that regard.

It is unethical for scientist to advocate any solution to a problem. Scientist should limit themselves to providing explanaition for phenomena. It is up to policy-makers to advocate for solutions.

Report this comment

#55) On February 01, 2010 at 10:07 AM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

Suppose we do need to reduce atmospheric CO2. Policymakers can propose all the solutions they want. They can assume all the CO2 reductions they want. If the scientists add it up and say it won't work, scientists should and must advocate.

Among climatologists it is 99:1 believing in AGW. Your suggetsion that I read through 20 or so reports and the reports they lead us to is fun.

If the 99 scientists are correct, and they are saying we don't have much time to make policy, then we probably shouldn't delay any more by asking every last devoish in the world to read through and make a decision. I don't count in this debate.

What strikes me as beyond moronic is the argument that at 99:1, the experts don't count either.

Report this comment

#56) On February 01, 2010 at 11:38 AM, whereaminow (58.64) wrote:

The IPCC’s Love Guru Jan 30, 2010 – 10:21 PM

You can’t make this stuff up.

Rajendra Pachauri was apparently too busy to check into glaciergate problems in December. We now know why. Instead of proofreading climate articles, Pachauri has been busy launching a softcore novel about the sexual adventures of a climate expert in his late 60s
( WUWT here, Telegraph here, Indian Times here. The Telegraph:

Return to Almora, published in Dr Pachauri’s native India earlier this month, tells the story of Sanjay Nath, an academic in his 60s reminiscing on his “spiritual journey” through India, Peru and the US.

On the way he encounters, among others, Shirley MacLaine, the actress, who appears as a character in the book. While relations between Sanjay and MacLaine remain platonic, he enjoys sex – a lot of sex – with a lot of women.

In breathless prose that risks making Dr Pachauri, who will be 70 this year, a laughing stock among the serious, high-minded scientists and world leaders with whom he mixes, he details sexual encounter after sexual encounter.

The book, which makes reference to the Kama Sutra, starts promisingly enough as it tells the story of a climate expert with a lament for the denuded mountain slopes of Nainital, in northern India, where deforestation by the timber mafia and politicians has “endangered the fragile ecosystem”.

The Telegraph continues:

But talk of “denuding” is a clue of what is to come.

By page 16, Sanjay is ready for his first liaison with May in a hotel room in Nainital. “She then led him into the bedroom,” writes Dr Pachauri.

“She removed her gown, slipped off her nightie and slid under the quilt on his bed… Sanjay put his arms around her and kissed her, first with quick caresses and then the kisses becoming longer and more passionate.

“May slipped his clothes off one by one, removing her lips from his for no more than a second or two.

“Afterwards she held him close. ‘Sandy, I’ve learned something for the first time today. You are absolutely superb after meditation. Why don’t we make love every time immediately after you have meditated?’.”

More follows, including Sanjay and friends queuing to have sexual encounters with Sajni, an impoverished but willing local: “Sanjay saw a shapely dark-skinned girl lying on Vinay’s bed. He was overcome by a lust that he had never known before … He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni’s body, caressing her voluptuous breasts.”

Sadly for Sanjay, writes Dr Pachauri, “the excitement got the better of him, before he could even get started”.

While teaching meditation to women in the US, Sanjay can once more barely contain his ardour. Again, breasts – usually heaving or else voluptuous – are thrust to the fore.

“He enjoyed the sensation of gently pushing Susan’s shoulders back a few inches, an action that served to lift her breasts even higher,” writes Dr Pachauri. “He was excited by the sight of her heaving breasts, as she breathed in and out deeply.”

A friend of Susan is taken to a motel by Sanjay but only after he has fondled her breasts – “which he just could not let go of” – inadvertently sounding the car horn at the same time.

Other passages in the novel involve group sex and more risqué sexual practices.

The novel was launched amid much fanfare with Bollywood stars and wealthy industrialists in attendance, a reflection of Dr Pachauri’s esteemed status in the country.

In breaking news, Vivid Entertainment has bought the film rights to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. They plan to give new meaning to the terms Working Group 1, Working Group 2 and Working Group 3. They promise to give “peer review” an entirely new interpretation.

Report this comment

#57) On February 01, 2010 at 1:21 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

David,

Perhaps "band of idiots" should be rephrased as "band of charlatans". It is more accurate.

Known as thesaurus-loving nzsvz9

Report this comment

#58) On February 01, 2010 at 1:28 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

Ok.

that was funny.

Report this comment

#59) On February 01, 2010 at 1:41 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

But, concsensus on the boiling point of water, pressure under a wing, or mechanical advantage are not being used as a wedge for changes in public policy that will affect my lifestyle and my income. No one is reaching into my pocket or telling me what my life needs to be like because H2O likes to evaporate under certain known conditions.

AGW however, is the wedge for a more Socialist anti-American "sustainable" lifestyle using tax and giveaway to punish and reward through government theft.

There are deeply understood models and proven theorems on aeronautics, kinematics, quantum mechanics, temperater/pressure, and so on ... which do not include scientists lying and hiding discordant data, whatever their motive.

Whether the AGW scientists are conspiratorial about the public policy they prefer, or whether it is to continue the funding they seek to personally profit from, or whether it is to be adored as a savior, it does not matter; they are charlatans.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Known probably as nzsvz9

Report this comment

#60) On February 01, 2010 at 10:32 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

But, concsensus on the boiling point of water, pressure under a wing, or mechanical advantage are not being used as a wedge for changes in public policy that will affect my lifestyle and my income.

Trust me, learning to fly changed public policy. We got air raid sirens among other things.

A skeptic made the argument that scientists never reach "consensus", in order to discredit the scientists that agree with AGW.

His argument was not grounded in fact.

Report this comment

#61) On February 01, 2010 at 10:54 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

And the plot thickens.

First, an experts suspicion;

A highly sophisticated hacking operation that led to the leaking of hundreds of emails from the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia was probably carried out by a foreign intelligence agency, according to the Government's former chief scientist. Sir David King, who was Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser for seven years until 2007, said that the hacking and selective leaking of the unit's emails, going back 13 years, bore all the hallmarks of a co-ordinated intelligence operation – especially given their release just before the Copenhagen climate conference in December...

Then, his speculation;

...Sir David said, however, that it was not possible to dismiss the possibility of Russia's involvement. "If it was a job done on behalf of a government, then I suppose there is the possibility that it could be the Russian intelligence agency," he said.

"If it was a maverick group then I suppose it could be the Americans, but I am hazarding a guess as much as anyone else. The only thing is, I've worked within government and I've seen this in operation," Sir David added. "It was a sophisticated and expensive operation. In terms of the expense, there is the American lobby system which is a very likely source of finance. Right now, the American lobbyists are a very likely source of finance for this, so the finger must point to them," he said.

Finally, the link to the story.

I have no idea if this story will pan out, but it certainly is getting all 007 on us.

Report this comment

#62) On February 01, 2010 at 11:06 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

Devoish, maybe it was an inside job, Harry the programmer could have sold the emails to the Russians, lol.

 

Report this comment

#63) On February 06, 2010 at 1:34 PM, tonylogan1 (28.65) wrote:

AGW is non-sense.

You can copy and paste as many paragraphs as you like, but it is still a crock of sh.t

Report this comment

#64) On February 06, 2010 at 10:57 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

tonylogan1,

No. It is not a crock. Neither is the collapse of tuna. Neither is the great extinction we are causing.

See you there.

Report this comment

#65) On February 07, 2010 at 2:54 PM, tonylogan1 (28.65) wrote:

Enjoy your doom and gloom fantasy devo.

I am finding plenty of tuna. Maybe the lack of it in your world is causing your sadness.

Report this comment

#66) On February 11, 2010 at 9:03 AM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

tonylogan1,

We shall see.

Report this comment

#67) On February 11, 2010 at 8:33 PM, tonylogan1 (28.65) wrote:

Yes devo... all we have to do is wait 100 years and see if we are all dead.

Let the experiment begin.

Report this comment

Blog Archive

2013

February (2) January (2)

2012

December (1) November (4) October (1) September (1) August (2) July (3) June (2) May (1) April (1) March (3) February (3) January (2)

2011

November (2) October (3) August (1) July (1) June (9) May (8) April (14) March (10) February (20) January (8)

2010

December (10) November (8) October (7) September (7) August (12) July (13) June (12) May (8) April (10) March (12) February (8) January (8)

2009

December (6) November (19) October (16) September (13) August (17) July (19) June (11) May (16) April (20) March (30) February (6) January (7)