|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Thread Where Everyone Argues If Man-Induced Climate Change Is Real
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What is it's [the IPCCs] purpose - do you know? It certainly isn't to further knowledge about climate change.
The primary role of the IPCC is to collate scientific evidence produced by researchers around the world, mostly published in peer reviewed journals, and present it in a manner accessible to non-scientists (primarily international policy makers; initially to give scientific input to the Rio Earth Summit, but later other international summits such as Kyoto; but also national governments and private individuals). That's why the reports are very strictly "this is what's happening" and "if you do this, this is what's predicted to happen", without any "you must do this" - the decision of what to do is a policy issue and is outwith their remit. The IPCC commissions a small amout of research, but primarily systematises the research others are doing. Because it's very difficult to access the output of models based on different scenarios, the IPCC did produce a set of standard scenarios most modellers use (often with other scenarios as well) - but if the IPCC hadn't done this someone else would have as it's essential for good science.
quote:
p.s. Please, anyone, can you show me the list of scientists who contributed to the last report and their work?
The names of the contributing authors, and reviewers, are given in the reports themselves. For the WGI report, you can find them in the annexes (pdf file) starting from p15 of the file. The names and institutions are given, assuming you're familiar with Google you can find out as much information about them as you want - but as there are a few names there it may take you some time.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:Not my claim to be able to, that there are conflicting theories is my main point, therefore no consensus.
This seems to be a non sequitur. "Consensus" does not usually imply unanimity.
quote:
From dictionary.com:
con·sen·sus /kənˈsɛnsəs/
1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
There will be a handful of people who hold conflicting theories for any scientific question - e.g. Frederick Seitz and Richard Lindzen, who you quote.
But so what? They're in a tiny minority who have made themselves vocal, telling us what we ALL want to hear. That doesn't prevent a consensus, and in this case an overwhelming consensus.
I meant consensus as in 'scientific consensus', that the science isn't disputed. It is disputed. There are good reasons for it being disputed. Those reasons haven't been answered.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh: quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:Unless of course the theories are so obviously nonsense that a specialist would need to be either a moron or a liar to advocate it.
And this is what I've found re 'global warming'.
quote:
OK. So based on you reading a few websites over several months (ones proudly quoting Op-Ed pieces from the...wait for it...Wall Street Journal eleven years ago), you're in a position to call the thousands of scientists liars and/or morons.
Oh, and not just the actual climate scientists, but every major scientific institution in the world, that collectively represent God knows how many hundred thousand scientists.
And you're utterly convinced of it, with not a sliver of doubt.
You seem like a decent person Myrrh - compassionate, and prepared to stand up for causes you believe in. But can't you see the phenomenal arrogance that you're displaying here?
Phew. Those who forget history... Even history 11 years ago?!
This is when the policy change came into being, from an objective look at the science available to a conclusion pushed through in spite of it. This is when the agenda of some became reality and it wasn't based on the science available. This is what was taken out of the report's conclusion:
quote:
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
(Myths / Facts
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING)
This is the critical moment in the saga so far - think about it. The data hadn't changed, but the above was taken out of the IPCC report and from then on the opposite has become a campaign to fudge the actual scientific evidence available to further a particular agenda. Those, the majority of people, who have no reason to doubt the integrity of the IPCC will continue to be deceived here. This is the moment the IPCC became dishonest.
This is the moment the science died.
From then on the IPCC has been working to someone else's agenda, the contrary conclusion decided and promoted ad nauseam by the myth of global warming presented as a fact without solid science to back it up. This is the moment it became junk science.
You really want to ignore this?:
quote:
A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.
The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.
Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.
It's a myth that all scientists agree with the global warming theory, but how will you ever see this if you take a deliberate con as objective science? What chance does an ordinary oik have of understanding this when he is being deliberately conned and intimidated because all questioning it are accused of arrogance and worse, likened to Holocaust deniers? And that's quite apart from the rubbishing of scientists who dare say their reports were manipulated - this is proof that the science has been junked for someone's agenda. And it all happened only 11 years ago...
Since then the IPCC cannot be trusted to give real science on the subject, but its technique has been refined and you'll be hard pressed to spot it liberal as it is with such conclusions as 'anthropogenic causes the most likely to account for global warming' while the data it presents produces no evidence to support it.
Read through this analysis also (and for Alan, the hard graft has been done):
quote:
(Release Date: February 5, 2007
London, UK - An independent review of the latest United Nations report on climate change shows that the scientific evidence about global warming remains uncertain and provides no basis for alarmism.
In 2006, independent research organization The Fraser Institute convened a panel of 10 internationally-recognized experts to read the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report and produce an Independent Summary for Policymakers. The result, released today, is a detailed and thorough overview of the state of the science. This independent summary has been reviewed by more than 50 scientists around the world and their views on its balance and reliability are tabulated for readers.
“While a lot of effort goes into producing the large IPCC reports, its complex message is often obscured by its accompanying Summary for Policymakers. That summary report does not come from the scientific community. Instead it is developed through political negotiations by unnamed bureaucrats from various governments. Critics of past summaries point out they downplay and gloss over areas of uncertainty and data limitations,” said Dr. Ross McKitrick, coordinator of the independent review and senior fellow with The Fraser Institute.
“The debate around climate change has become highly politicized and alarmist. So we asked a team of highly qualified scientists to look at the IPCC report and produce a summary that they felt communicates the real state of knowledge. Our intent with this document is to allow people to see for themselves what is known and what remains highly uncertain within climate change science.”
continued on:Independent summary shows new UN climate change report refutes alarmism and reveals major uncertainties in the science
Contact(s):)
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:Not my claim to be able to, that there are conflicting theories is my main point, therefore no consensus.
This seems to be a non sequitur. "Consensus" does not usually imply unanimity.
quote:
From dictionary.com:
con·sen·sus /kənˈsɛnsəs/
1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
There will be a handful of people who hold conflicting theories for any scientific question - e.g. Frederick Seitz and Richard Lindzen, who you quote.
But so what? They're in a tiny minority who have made themselves vocal, telling us what we ALL want to hear. That doesn't prevent a consensus, and in this case an overwhelming consensus.
I meant consensus as in 'scientific consensus', that the science isn't disputed. It is disputed. There are good reasons for it being disputed. Those reasons haven't been answered.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh: quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:Unless of course the theories are so obviously nonsense that a specialist would need to be either a moron or a liar to advocate it.
And this is what I've found re 'global warming'.
quote:
OK. So based on you reading a few websites over several months (ones proudly quoting Op-Ed pieces from the...wait for it...Wall Street Journal eleven years ago), you're in a position to call the thousands of scientists liars and/or morons.
Oh, and not just the actual climate scientists, but every major scientific institution in the world, that collectively represent God knows how many hundred thousand scientists.
And you're utterly convinced of it, with not a sliver of doubt.
You seem like a decent person Myrrh - compassionate, and prepared to stand up for causes you believe in. But can't you see the phenomenal arrogance that you're displaying here?
Phew. Those who forget history... Even history 11 years ago?!
This is when the policy change came into being, from an objective look at the science available to a conclusion pushed through in spite of it. This is when the agenda of some became reality and it wasn't based on the science available. This is what was taken out of the report's conclusion:
quote:
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
(Myths / Facts
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING)
This is the critical moment in the saga so far - think about it. The data hadn't changed, but the above was taken out of the IPCC report and from then on the opposite has become a campaign to fudge the actual scientific evidence available to further a particular agenda. Those, the majority of people, who have no reason to doubt the integrity of the IPCC will continue to be deceived here. This is the moment the IPCC became dishonest.
This is the moment the science died.
From then on the IPCC has been working to someone else's agenda, the contrary conclusion decided and promoted ad nauseam by the myth of global warming presented as a fact without solid science to back it up. This is the moment it became junk science.
You really want to ignore this?:
quote:
A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.
The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.
Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.
It's a myth that all scientists agree with the global warming theory, but how will you ever see this if you take a deliberate con as objective science? What chance does an ordinary oik have of understanding this when he is being deliberately conned and intimidated because all questioning it are accused of arrogance and worse, likened to Holocaust deniers? And that's quite apart from the rubbishing of scientists who dare say their reports were manipulated - this is proof that the science has been junked for someone's agenda. And it all happened only 11 years ago...
Since then the IPCC cannot be trusted to give real science on the subject, but its technique has been refined and you'll be hard pressed to spot it liberal as it is with such conclusions as 'anthropogenic causes the most likely to account for global warming' while the data it presents produces no evidence to support it.
Read through this analysis also (and for Alan, the hard graft has been done):
quote:
(Release Date: February 5, 2007
London, UK - An independent review of the latest United Nations report on climate change shows that the scientific evidence about global warming remains uncertain and provides no basis for alarmism.
In 2006, independent research organization The Fraser Institute convened a panel of 10 internationally-recognized experts to read the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report and produce an Independent Summary for Policymakers. The result, released today, is a detailed and thorough overview of the state of the science. This independent summary has been reviewed by more than 50 scientists around the world and their views on its balance and reliability are tabulated for readers.
“While a lot of effort goes into producing the large IPCC reports, its complex message is often obscured by its accompanying Summary for Policymakers. That summary report does not come from the scientific community. Instead it is developed through political negotiations by unnamed bureaucrats from various governments. Critics of past summaries point out they downplay and gloss over areas of uncertainty and data limitations,” said Dr. Ross McKitrick, coordinator of the independent review and senior fellow with The Fraser Institute.
“The debate around climate change has become highly politicized and alarmist. So we asked a team of highly qualified scientists to look at the IPCC report and produce a summary that they felt communicates the real state of knowledge. Our intent with this document is to allow people to see for themselves what is known and what remains highly uncertain within climate change science.”
continued on:Independent summary shows new UN climate change report refutes alarmism and reveals major uncertainties in the science
Contact(s):)
Myrrh
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I meant consensus as in 'scientific consensus', that the science isn't disputed. It is disputed.
Agreed, a handful of scientists dispute it - out of thousands. That is pretty much the definition of "overwhelming scientific consensus". It's not unanimity. It's not disputed because it's no longer considered a scientifically interesting topic to discuss at academic conferences or in the journals: the scientists overwhelming agree. Real debate has moved to other issues, and did so long ago.
And your theory is that the IPCC has not only conned the public, but also the...
- Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
- Royal Society of Canada
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Academié des Sciences (France)
- Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
- Indian National Science Academy
- Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
- Science Council of Japan
- Russian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Society (United Kingdom)
- National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
- Australian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
- Caribbean Academy of Sciences
- Indonesian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Irish Academy
- Academy of Sciences Malaysia
- Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
- Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
- NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
- National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
- State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
- Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- American Institute of Physics (AIP)
- National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
- American Meteorological Society (AMS)
- Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
These include the most respected, oldest, largest scientific organisations in the world. They have a collective membership of hundreds of thousands.
For instance, the National Academy of Sciences:
quote:
The NAS was signed into being by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863, at the height of the Civil War. As mandated in its Act of Incorporation, the NAS has, since 1863, served to "investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art" [...] The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes.
Now in the other corner, you're giving us links from:
- The Wall Street Journal
- The Frasier Institute (Right-wing think tank, run by economists and an 'econometrist'.)
- Friends of Science (Set up in 2002 specifically to oppose AGW ideas. Funded by oil companies.)
Seriously Myrrh - step back and pause. Don't you see the mis-match here?
Don't you see that right-wing newspapers, think tanks and small oil-company funded pressure groups, who have never published a single paper in a respected journal between them, might not be an entirely unbiased source of scientific information?
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What science there is shows that CO2 is index linked to rises in temperature, with a time lag of around 800 years
I'm sure I've said this before. But, perhaps it needs repeating as the "800 year lag" thing's still getting said. The science is very clear. ...
The importance to the question of anthropogenic forcing of the climate is marginal, because we're accessing a completely different carbon reservoir. Though it does mean that even if we stabilise our anthropogenic input to the system, because of the temperature increase we've already caused ..
Not proved that we have any SIGNIFICANT effect.
And, no, it's not "very clear" at all.
How, as a scientist, can you take such arguments seriously?:
quote:
When the AGW lobby was confronted with this "problem" that it had attempted to conceal behind the thickness of the graph line, the response is typified by that of the pro-AGW web site realclimate.org:
"All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2..." (The 800-Year Lag)
The very language is unscientific.
quote:
..there's going to be releases of CO2 from that deep ocean reservoir in the coming centuries as that deep water circulates back to the surface. Not that you or I are going to be around in 800 years to see the natural system add CO2 to the atmosphere in response to the temperature change we've just induced.
Again - Quantify the "temperature change we've just induced", give me actual concrete data to show that we have actually changed the global temperature by anthropogenic forcing.
I'm really fed up with this claim. The recent century and a half increase is measured against an effin mini ice age (which was flattened into non existence by the original Mann which became the base of this measurement). When people held parties on a frozen Thames warmed by bonfires built on the ice! How daft is that as a scare tactic? There's not even a smidgin of common sense here, let alone science. What caused the effin rise in temperature before there was any significant industry to speak of?????????????????
There have been times when there was triple even ten times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and no indication that it affected global temperature one way or the other. CO2 is insignificant as a cause of global warming.
Was there anything 800 years ago that would account for a rise in CO2 levels now, if there actually has been a rise since this is another area of dispute..?
Anyway, it's also nonsense to see imput of CO2 into the atmosphere are a static detrimental to the earth's good, CO2 is a main building block of life and IT'S USED by life forms in natural exchange.
quote:
I'm fed up with the pseudo science produced by the IPCC bandwagoneers which makes ridiculous statements such as "likely to be anthropogenic" and so on WITHOUT the slightest bit of uncontroversial actual science to back it up, and, etc. etc.
quote:
Er-hum. There's oodles and oodles of scientific papers in peer reviewed journals, by thousands of qualified scientists, working in practically every country in the world. They all provide scientific backing to the fact that CO2 has increased dramatically due to human activity (it correlates strongly with industrialisation, the carbon isotope ratio is clearly from fossil-carbon, and it makes sense that if we burn lots of fossil carbon generating CO2 it'll end up in the atmosphere), the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the fact that temperatures are increasing globally at an unprecedented rate that correlates with CO2, and presenting a range of models that all reproduce the observed data fairly well. With an enormous weight of evidence behind them, the biggest problem the IPCC has in maintaining scientific credibility is that they're over-cautious and aren't strong enough in asserting the scientific evidence. Forget "likely to be anthropogenic", the science is stronger than that - "certainly anthropogenic" is much closer to the mark.
There effin isn't!!!!! There is no effin correlation between industry and rise in global temperature! YOU have yet, after countless times of asking, to produce anything to prove this. All these 'countless scientists that you agree with' disagree with those who don't see any correlation. The science is not conclusive to back up your claim. If there was you would be able to point to a peer reviewed report which dealt with each rebuttal by facts not fudge.
quote:
The Industrial Revolution really began after the Second World War which was followed by four decades of temperature decrease. This confounds the theory somewhat.
Since the mid 19th century, the Earth's temperature has risen by about half a degree Celsius. This warming began long before cars and planes had been invented. What's more, most of the rise in temperature occurred before 1940 when industrial production was relatively insignificant.
Why do we suppose that carbon dioxide is responsible for our changing climate? CO2 forms only a very small part of the Earth's atmosphere. In fact changes in CO² levels are measured in tens of parts per million. It measures about 0.054% of the atmosphere.
Although CO² is a greenhouse gas, it is a relatively minor one, water vapour is, by far, the biggest player
A scientist largely responsible for measuring the Earth's atmosphere is Professor John Christy. In 1991, he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and in 1996 he received a Special Award from the American Meteorological Society for fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate. He reports "What we've found, consistently, in a great part of the planet, is that the atmosphere is not warming as much as we see on the surface". This suggests that the warming is not a result of greenhouse gases. (The Great Global Warming Swindle
Carbon Dioxide is not the Culprit!)
How, as a scientist, can you continue to ignore the renowned scientists who dispute the theory?
The IPCC is shown to have changed it's conclusion which actually said there was no scientific base for thinking that anthropogenic causes affected global temperature. This was the conclusion in the original peer reviewed report. You're promoting an con. You can't prove it.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Now in the other corner, you're giving us links from:
- The Wall Street Journal
- The Frasier Institute (Right-wing think tank, run by economists and an 'econometrist'.)
- Friends of Science (Set up in 2002 specifically to oppose AGW ideas. Funded by oil companies.)
Seriously Myrrh - step back and pause. Don't you see the mis-match here?
Don't you see that right-wing newspapers, think tanks and small oil-company funded pressure groups, who have never published a single paper in a respected journal between them, might not be an entirely unbiased source of scientific information?
Seriously Hiro. I'm at a loss here, it doesn't bother you at all that what these few voices point out is that the IPCC altered its original conclusion which showed there was no case for the anthropogenic claim and that since then it's conclusions continue the hype unsupported by the actual facts in subsequent reports.
The emperor wasn't wearing any clothes...
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Personally, I don't see any government has a right to legislate on the use of any natural substance found on earth - to claim one has control over something one hasn't created is tyranny.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Seriously Hiro. I'm at a loss here, it doesn't bother you at all that what these few voices point out is that the IPCC altered its original conclusion
Hi Myrrh,
No, it doesn't bother me, because your sources for reporting it seem to have very large biases and vested interests in the status quo. Put it this way:
Option 1.- The IPCC is a political conspiracy.
- The holes in AGW theory are so gaping that you, with your several weeks reading, can see them easily.
- The people who point these flaws out to you all happen to belong to interest groups that stand to lose greatly by cutting carbon.
- The thousands of scientists involved in the IPCC are utterly stupid, and unable to see these flaws. This is despite their postgraduate degrees in atmospheric physics and years of research work.
- The scientists who take part in the IPCC who aren't utter stupid are irredeemably corrupt. Despite them doing jobs that are legendary for low pay, they en-mass decide to sell out for a few more dollars of research funding.
- None of these brighter but greedy scientists is then tempted to sell their conspiracy stories to the media, despite the riches that would await them.
- Academic journals across the world are in on it, only publishing the IPCC lies.
- Every scientific institution on the planet gets in on the act, backing this monsterous political conspiracy that you (and libertarian bloggers everywhere) can see so clearly.
Option 2- The IPCC reports are basically sound.
- Some of the richest organisations in the world stand to lose money as a result.
- You read biased information they distribute through non-scientific organisations. You're new to climate science, you have no background in the physics of it, but it sounds feasible.
- You are mistaken.
The first option requires me to believe in a gigantic, utterly unheard of conspiracy by people who generally value their reputation for accuracy more than anything.
The second option doesn't.
I'll tell you what. Show me ONE major long-standing scientific body anywhere in the world that supports your conspiracy, and I'll spend at least ten hours over the weekend researching any claims you like.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
In my yoof I took off "to see the world" and spent the next three years travelling in the East between England and Japan. I was in Laos when the US was in the middle of its genocide of the northern Laotian people and yet the US presence in Laos and Cambodia remained hidden to the vast majority of people in the world. How come? In the hotel used as the watering hole for the world's press I found out how, none of journalist's editors would print their stories. This is fact, it was several years later went the stink came out, that the US had been secretly and illegally bombing two nations it wasn't at war with..
I'm really not at all impressed by huge lists of "those who support" the global warming theory... From what I've read most support it from expediency - I've lost track of the amounts of research I've read by scientists who prefer to concentrate on their interests, and show amazing years of hard work in doing so, and add a line at the end as a milk sop to the global warming theory.
Seriously, I'm genuinely concerned that this is giving you sleepless nights and can only suggest that you include political and ideological reasons in support for it, in other words take a step back. As long as it's disputed science it isn't proved.
It hasn't answered even the most simple of objections.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I was in Laos when the US was in the middle of its genocide of the northern Laotian people and yet the US presence in Laos and Cambodia remained hidden to the vast majority of people in the world.
It must have been quite an experience. But controlling the media in a (near) war zone is one thing, and one we know happens; controlling every scientific institution on the planet for years and years is an entirely different thing. Scientists can be herded like ferrets.
quote:
I've lost track of the amounts of research I've read by scientists who prefer to concentrate on their interests, and show amazing years of hard work in doing so, and add a line at the end as a milk sop to the global warming theory.
That's a perfectly fair comment, and I have no doubt it goes on a lot. But it's a million miles from lying about results, and that's that you're suggesting - on a massive scale.
Why do people go into science? After all, the pay's pretty crappy and the jobs are hard. One answer is that that they're fascinated by it, and want to find out how things work. Fabricating results is an anathema to that.
Another driving force is for prestige within the scientific community. Again, this generates a respect for careful statements and accuracy: if you claim too much, or are sloppy, you lose big kudos.
Occasionally someone fakes results - but it's a huge scandal when that happens. The idea of getting virtually every climate scientist and every scientific organisation to simultaneously do so is beyond belief.
But even beyond that, now governments worldwide support the findings. Regardless of their ideology, and even though they never agree on anything, and that it's against most of their interests to do so. Nobody wants this to be true. Aside from economic slowdown, they'll have to set targets, they'll fail to meet them, and they'll look inept.
quote:
It hasn't answered even the most simple of objections.
So you keep asserting. (Along with "It's junk science!" and "None of it is proven!")
[ 09. August 2007, 18:58: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
the US presence in Laos and Cambodia remained hidden to the vast majority of people in the world.
When are you talking about exactly?
I seem to remember that we heard about it every day. The US government may have denied ti but we didn't believe them
quote:
This is fact, it was several years later went the stink came out, that the US had been secretly and illegally bombing two nations it wasn't at war with.
When exactly?
quote:
I'm really not at all impressed by huge lists of "those who support" the global warming theory...
By their frutis shall ye know them
Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos taught us that when the US government said one thing and the journalists and scientists another the journalists and scientists were more likely to be telling the truth.
The same US government and business interests who tried AND FAILED to lie about Laos have since been trying and FAILING to lie about the environment.
If your story about Laos back then is true then you seem toi have changed sides. You are not saying you believe the peopel who were lying to you back then.
quote:
From what I've read most support it from expediency
Name one.
quote:
As long as it's disputed science it isn't proved.
Proved is for courts. Science is aa matter of probabilities statistics.
To want to take action I don't have to believe that the global warming story is 100% likely to be true.
If, say, I thought that the cost of taking action to reduce the damage was X trillion dollars, and there was a 1 in 5 chance of global warming costing 10X trillion dollars, then it woudl be rational to take the action, even though I though that damage was not very likely to happen.
quote:
It hasn't answered even the most simple of objections.
Yes it has and you know it has.
[ 09. August 2007, 19:17: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What science there is shows that CO2 is index linked to rises in temperature, with a time lag of around 800 years
I'm sure I've said this before. But, perhaps it needs repeating as the "800 year lag" thing's still getting said. The science is very clear. ...
The importance to the question of anthropogenic forcing of the climate is marginal, because we're accessing a completely different carbon reservoir. Though it does mean that even if we stabilise our anthropogenic input to the system, because of the temperature increase we've already caused ..
Not proved that we have any SIGNIFICANT effect.
Yes, it's been proved that we're having a significant effect on global climate (or, more scientifically "the data is consistent with human activity having a significant effect on the global climate, and inconsistent with the view that human activity is having no effect" - see, for example, figure SPM4.5 on p11 of this report - which has already been discussed on this thread).
quote:
And, no, it's not "very clear" at all.
It seems very clear to me. I open my eyes, look at the data and models and lo and behold the data fits one model but not the other. That's what science does - postulate a theory, make a prediction and compare with data. When the data matches a theory and doesn't match the alternative theories that makes it "very clear" that the theory that matches the data is much better than the one that doesn't.
quote:
How, as a scientist, can you take such arguments seriously?
Because the arguments are bloody good science. I take good science seriously.
None of which has bugger all to do with the quote you were responding to, because you dodged the point entirely. Which was that the well known and understood 800 year time lag between the onset of warming and large increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations at the end of glaciations is irrelevant to discussions of other sources of CO2 in the atmosphere (eg: burning the fossil fuel reservoir).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
A new and improved model of the predicted increase in global temperature over the next few years... capable of accurately modelling the changes of the last decades through a model which in which CO2 is heating the earth combined with observational data to help factor in stochastic effects.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Not advocating any position on this, but I'm not sure if anyone posted This or the Response (bottom of page)
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Not advocating any position on this, but I'm not sure if anyone posted This or the Response (bottom of page)
I'm not in a position to judge the accuracy of climate models: I'd be surprised if more than one person in 100,000 is.
However, James Hansen, working for NASA on the first detailed climate models, testified to the US Senate in 1988 that we would see temperature rises due to CO2. At the time this was widely decried, and many of the skeptics said "the Earth isn't warming at all". Since then, the temperature rise has become undeniable, and their position has shifted to "OK, it's warming like you said, but it's just natural", or "it won't rise much more". (Pat Michaels also blatantly deceived Congress ten years later about Hansen's predictions.)
Lindzen and Dyson et al could be right. It could be dodgy modelling, and nothing to worry about. But virtually all experts disagree, and the real warming has been even worse than the models. Because the consequences of inaction are potentially so dire, it seems INSANE to not consider there's at least a very good chance of the predictions being right and so plan accordingly.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
fredwa
Apprentice
# 12401
|
Posted
quote:
Personally, I don't see any government has a right to legislate on the use of any natural substance found on earth - to claim one has control over something one hasn't created is tyranny.
Really Myrrh? So no regulation of alcohol, or tobacco, what about cannabis, or coke, or opium? Do you really think there should be no legislation on lead, even in children's toys, or what about arsenic? Presumably uranium trading should be completely unfettered?
It's an interesting position to take but rather revealing of your political views. Or it might be you don't really mean it and it was sloppy thinking.
I'd love to know which.
Fred
Posts: 5 | From: Tiger country | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
It must have been quite an experience. But controlling the media in a (near) war zone is one thing, and one we know happens; controlling every scientific institution on the planet for years and years is an entirely different thing. Scientists can be herded like ferrets.
I think you meant here "can't be herded"? Well, I know I keep coming back to this, but the Hockey Stick was a scam. And scientists since have been herded into toeing the party line. Not for the first time in our history, it takes a certain greatness to become a Sakharov.
quote:
That's a perfectly fair comment, and I have no doubt it goes on a lot. But it's a million miles from lying about results, and that's that you're suggesting - on a massive scale.
quote:
So to the scare. First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.
Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "
So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here's how they did it:
continued on:(Climate chaos? Don't believe it
By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph)
This is the man who was advisor to Maggie Thatcher when she was looking for ways to screw the coal miners and annoyed that Britain was reliant on Mid East oil and Britain was very much against nuclear power stations (see Sellafied/Windscale). So when she read that someone thought CO2 would contribute to global warming, and at that time it was seen as a good thing, Monckton was one of those sent to investigate if this could be of any use to her politically. Politically.
And the scam has growed and growed like topsy ever since, to the extraordinary extent that greenpeace type environmentalists are now muttering for nuclear power plants!
quote:
Why do people go into science? After all, the pay's pretty crappy and the jobs are hard. One answer is that that they're fascinated by it, and want to find out how things work. Fabricating results is an anathema to that.
Sure, for the majority of scientists it is, but you err if you think the IPCC is run by scientists, it's not, it's a politically organisation making use of science, and several have accused it of misrepresenting their work.
quote:
Another driving force is for prestige within the scientific community. Again, this generates a respect for careful statements and accuracy: if you claim too much, or are sloppy, you lose big kudos.
Fine, I agree with all that. But the IPCC has no such compunction, nor have the many journalists who prefer a good story to accuracy, ditto politicians. But, as above, their are scientists who don't have this integrity. And it's they who are driving this scam.
quote:
Occasionally someone fakes results - but it's a huge scandal when that happens. The idea of getting virtually every climate scientist and every scientific organisation to simultaneously do so is beyond belief.
Most keep their noses clean and don't get involved in the politics as long as they can continue doing their research unhindered, as I've said and seen many times. A milk sop to the work being relevant in the "global warming" issue is enough to get funded.
quote:
But even beyond that, now governments worldwide support the findings. Regardless of their ideology, and even though they never agree on anything, and that it's against most of their interests to do so. Nobody wants this to be true. Aside from economic slowdown, they'll have to set targets, they'll fail to meet them, and they'll look inept.
Since when has that bothered any government? As long as it can maintain power .. Anyway, all this is practically irrelevant, why it's being taken to the extent it has is too complicated - the OP is still whether man-induced climate change is real or not.
quote:
It hasn't answered even the most simple of objections.
So you keep asserting. (Along with "It's junk science!" and "None of it is proven!") [/QB][/QUOTE]
I keep asserting it because it's blatantly obvious. It hasn't been proved.
CO2 has not been shown to alter global temperatures. Never been shown to alter global temperatures.
The changes of temperature in the last 10,000 years show a consistent pattern of change, gradually sliding down into cold from that dramatic end of biggy ice age preceding it. In between we've had several mini ice ages and several mini warms, we're in a warm now after a nasty spell called the Mini Ice Age. Yeah right, it's got hotter since it stopped... duh.
If it wasn't for the deliberate scam which is the Hockey Stick there would be no "global warming" theory, it was designed to prove the theory by flattening out the Medieval Warm and Mini Ice Age to produce the scare. That is simply dishonest.
Mann took control of all that at the IPCC and has pushed it for whatever reasons best known to himself - but he cannot be called a scientist. He spent the next years obfuscating, refusing to produce his method and data for corrobative testing, until the whole man-made global warming acquired such momentum that even those who can now prove he produced a scam (any amount of random numbers can be entered and they will generate his hockey stick) it doesn't matter, it's become "gospel truth" that this is the hottest etc., and any scientist disagreeing is villified!
What produced the dramatic rise in temperature from the end of the Mini Ice Age? There was no global industry to speak of until the end of WWII, and the temperatures went down for the next decades.
We've been manipulated into believing a fact something which has NEVER been proved. And as I've posted above, something nasty politics happened around '95 - when the IPCC report changed by removing the reasonable conclusion from the science that there was nothing to suggest man-made CO2 was at all relevant to the beginning of pushing this as an agenda to which all science was then made to fit. And it was around this time that Mann taking control of the process.
That's the reality here.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
the US presence in Laos and Cambodia remained hidden to the vast majority of people in the world.
When are you talking about exactly?
I seem to remember that we heard about it every day. The US government may have denied ti but we didn't believe them
I was in Laos and Cambodia in January and February 1971, when was it in all the papers?
I haven't had time to do much research on this, but found re Cambodia: quote:
quote:
As Viet Cong activity grew, the United States became concerned, and in 1969, the US began a fourteen month long series of bombing raids targeted at Viet Cong elements. The US claims that the bombing took place no further than ten, and later twenty miles inside the border. (The truth of what actually took place is detailed in the following article – THE CLANDESTINE WAR).
[When in Phnom Penh we used to go and sit on the roof for an after dinner smoke and watch the US bombs fall around the city perimeter, but not attacking the Cambodians - they were 'impersonating' the 'N. Vietnamese' to gain popular support for their presence, (not long after I'd returned to Thailand they'd messed up and bombed the airport by mistake). There was a six o'clock curfew for the Vietnamese, 10 o'clock for the Cambodians.]
quote:
Solid estimates of the numbers who died between 1975 and 1979 are not available, but it is likely that hundreds of thousands were brutally murdered by the regime, while hundreds of thousands died of starvation and disease. It is probable that the figure is around 1.7 million deaths. That does not include the 1 million peasant farmers and their families who died as a consequence of the US carpet-bombing raids over Cambodia between 1969 and 1973 (see the following article – THE CLANDESTINE WAR).(Appendix D)
quote:
And, Appendix E, (same link)
Kissinger embarked on a plan to wipe out the Viet Cong activity inside Cambodia, but the extentto which the operation would reach needed to be shrouded in secrecy, away from the eyes and ears of an already hostile public. From March 1969, through to May 1970, US B-52’s conducted 3,630 sorties inside Cam-bodian territory, dropping massive amounts of explosives on Cambodian areas suspected of harbouring North Vietnamese forces. In April 1970, Nixon announced to the American public that US and South Vietnamese ground forces had entered Cambodia in a campaign aimed atdestroying North Vietnamese bases in Cambodia. Demonstrations took place across collegecampuses in the US, culminating in the death of four students at Kent State, lending support for US withdrawal from Vietnam.The North Vietnamese moved further into Cambodia, and the US stepped up the tempo bycarpet-bombing deeper into the country, indiscriminately inundating rice fields and villages alike. In The Rise and Demise of Democratic Kampuchea , Craig Etcheson writes: ‘The fact is that the United States dropped three times the quantity of explosives on Cambodia between 1970 and 1973 than it dropped on Japan for the duration of World War II. Between 1969 and 1973 – 539,129 tons of high explosives rained down on Cambodia; that is more than one billion pounds. This is equivalent to some 15,400 pounds of explosives for every square mile of Cambodian territory. Considering that probably less than 25 percent of the total area of Cambodia was bombed at one time or another, the actual force per area would be fourtimes this level.’
GENOCIDE AND PROPAGANDAThe relentless US bombing campaign (that progressed for nearly five years, continuing evenafter the 1973 Paris Accords) contributed greatly to the destabilisation of the country. It was duly noted by some scholars that it provided the Khmer Rouge ‘with the psychological ingredientsof a violent, vengeful, and unrelenting social revolution’ (David Chandler). However,for the mainstream media, the bombing campaign never happened; Cambodian history began with the Khmer Rouge genocide starting in 1975. This media stance continues today, although it is sometimes admitted in passing that the US dropped some bombs on Cambodia before 1975. In The Long Secret Alliance, John Pilger writes; ‘The US not only helped create conditions that brought Cambodia’sKhmer Rouge to power in 1975, but actively supported the genocidal force, politically and financially.’
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is fact, it was several years later went the stink came out, that the US had been secretly and illegally bombing two nations it wasn't at war with.
When exactly?
As above, I was there beginning 1971, and we were told by mainstream media reporters in Laos that they knew about the US carpet bombing of Norther Laos, but their editors wouldn't print it. The following month we went to Cambodia and among our fellow travellers from the border to Phnom Penh was a pilot who'd flown on these raids, over 500 a day he also told us. This corroborated the information we'd been given the previous month in Laos. This was more each day than the amount of bombs dropped on Germany in WWII.
The US carpet bombed countries it was not at war with with impunity. The US general in Laos, name escapes me, said something along the lines 'to get the fish they would dry up the pond' - to get at the arms supply coming through Laos the US had no hesitation at committing mass murder of all the people through which the trail went.
quote:
I'm really not at all impressed by huge lists of "those who support" the global warming theory...
quote:
By their frutis shall ye know them
Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos taught us that when the US government said one thing and the journalists and scientists another the journalists and scientists were more likely to be telling the truth.
Well, as you can see I don't have the same faith you have in journalists..
quote:
The same US government and business interests who tried AND FAILED to lie about Laos have since been trying and FAILING to lie about the environment.
If your story about Laos back then is true then you seem toi have changed sides. You are not saying you believe the peopel who were lying to you back then.
As I said, I don't believe we have a completely free press, so why should I believe we have a completely free scientific community?
quote:
From what I've read most support it from expediency
quote:
Name one.
In general, as last post - I've seen too many objective reports which then add a short paragraph of how this 'might be relevant' to global warming..
And who can blame them? I don't. If someone is willing to be stuck for years in an inhospitable clime to gather data because they think it's important/interesting, good for them.
quote:
As long as it's disputed science it isn't proved.
quote:
Proved is for courts. Science is aa matter of probabilities statistics.
To want to take action I don't have to believe that the global warming story is 100% likely to be true.
If, say, I thought that the cost of taking action to reduce the damage was X trillion dollars, and there was a 1 in 5 chance of global warming costing 10X trillion dollars, then it woudl be rational to take the action, even though I though that damage was not very likely to happen.
Well then, lets see the stats, and I hope you remember to include the plus side for those that would benefit.
quote:
It hasn't answered even the most simple of objections.
quote:
Yes it has and you know it has.
But it really hasn't. There is absolutely no proof that a) that there is such a thing as manmade global warming, not even b) that there is such a thing as CO2 driving global temperature even if C) any proof could be shown that this temperature rise since the last Mini Ice Age was at all out of norm.
NOTHING is proved, nor even close to being a rational hypothesis.
OK, you try. Show me that man-made CO2 has created the rise from the last Mini Ice Age when it was obviously of no importance in amount until post WWII.
Coincidence does not prove correlation.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fredwa:
quote:
Personally, I don't see any government has a right to legislate on the use of any natural substance found on earth - to claim one has control over something one hasn't created is tyranny.
Really Myrrh? So no regulation of alcohol, or tobacco, what about cannabis, or coke, or opium?
Exactly. Because no government has the right to decide which herbs we choose to use.
But you err, there are no real restrictions on alchohol and tobacco, we don't have prohibition because it's far too lucrative for the government. But, do you know why hemp got banned?
quote:
Do you really think there should be no legislation on lead, even in children's toys, or what about arsenic? Presumably uranium trading should be completely unfettered?[quote]
That's not the same thing. Obviously lead in childrens toys is unacceptable, although I don't know how long a child would need to suck his barbie doll before getting poisoned. Arsenic used to be, perhaps still is, available over the counter - it has a role in pest control other than slowly poisoning great uncle to speed up inheritance and the downside is that several herbs have been banned because they're upsetting the pharmaceutical companies - comfrey, St John's Wort, and a couple of days ago I found out ginko had been added to that list (Ireland).
[quote]It's an interesting position to take but rather revealing of your political views. Or it might be you don't really mean it and it was sloppy thinking.
I'd love to know which.
Fred
And exactly what has it revealed of my political views?
And, you've added to my statement by assuming it includes some of your examples so I'm really not sure that any reply I give isn't going to be taken out of context.
In a nutshell, no government has the blanket right to control the use of herbs, even if you don't approve of smoking or opium eating.., it has a duty to put restrictions on its use in place if detrimental to the common good in specific cases - not allowing our water supply to be poisoned, limits on drinking and driving and so on can be rationalised. It is not the government's business in principle if some choose to grow or use the natural resources of this planet.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I know I keep coming back to this, but the Hockey Stick was a scam.
What exactly do you mean by a 'scam'? The "Hockey Stick" has been repeatedly demonstrated to be consistent with other multi-regional estimates of temperature over the last 1000 years or so. Admittedly, some regional estimates (eg: those for NW Europe) do show a different pattern with a distinctly warmer period in the Middle Ages and a later cooler period, it's just that these regional variations don't have an enormous impact on hemispheric and global mean temperature estimates. Besides, even the data you've shown previously has demonstrated a significant temperature rise over the last 50 years that's been faster than other rises (or falls) and puts the current temperature at the warmest in recent history (last few thousand years). If even the skeptics data shows the same broad picture as Manns Hockey Stick (even if there's slight difference in the amount of temperature increase compared to 200 years ago) why keep bashing the Hockey Stick? Especially as the IPCC doesn't even use the Hockey Stick exclusively, it's one of about a dozen reconstructions that went into the report - some showing the same pattern as Mann, others showing the MWP and MIA more clearly; I think you've even used some of the data the IPCC used to try and demonstrate that the IPCC weren't using all the data!
quote:
This [Monckton] is the man who was advisor to Maggie Thatcher...
OK, so let me try and get this straight. You're willing to accept the authority of a non-scientist who you clearly acknowledge as being a political advisor. Yet, you're not willing to accept the authority of qualified scientists because they also advice politicians. What is your position on the issue of political advice? Are you going to reject the opinions of anyone who advises politicians? In which case, stop quoting Monckton. Or, are you going to accept that it's perfectly proper and reasonable for people with relevant expertise to advise politicians? In which case, stop knocking the IPCC for doing exactly that.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is the man who was advisor to Maggie Thatcher when she was looking for ways to screw the coal miners [...] Monckton was one of those sent to investigate if this could be of any use to her politically. Politically.
And the scam has growed and growed like topsy ever since
It's the "Maggie dunnit" theory! I haven't seen that since The Great Global Warming Swindle.
So to re-cap...
- Maggie started this by persuading a great load of UK scientists to lie for her, as an anti-coal tactic. (i.e. people that you've admitted have a professional love of accuracy.)
- This fraud was so successful it spread to researchers in the US, Germany, Canada, France, Italy, India...oh, well everywhere.
- After her losing power, the myth was so powerful that no-one could stop it, and the leading scientific organisations in every country without exception joined in. Countless independent researchers confirmed it.
- By sheer fluke, the predictions the theory made came true! It DID get warmer, at a rate far faster than anything ever seen before.
- Every government on the planet backed the conspiracy, even though it goes against most of their interests.
You actually believe this Myrrh? Rather than the infinitely simpler alternative that the science is reasonable?
quote:
you err if you think the IPCC is run by scientists, it's not, it's a politically organisation making use of science, and several have accused it of misrepresenting their work.
Several people? Out of the thousands of contributors, and the doubtless impressive egos knocking around, and the potential of honest mistakes and confusion, only a few were unhappy? That seems pretty impressive to me.
quote:
By Myrrh: quote:
By Hiro's Leap:
Another driving force is for prestige within the scientific community. Again, this generates a respect for careful statements and accuracy: if you claim too much, or are sloppy, you lose big kudos.
Fine, I agree with all that.
Quoted because it's good to see that you think most of them are honest.
quote:
Mann took control of all that at the IPCC and has pushed it for whatever reasons best known to himself but he cannot be called a scientist. He spent the next years obfuscating, refusing to produce his method and data for corrobative testing, until the whole man-made global warming acquired such momentum that even those who can now prove he produced a scam [...] And as I've posted above, something nasty politics happened around '95 [...] around this time that Mann taking control of the process.
That's the reality here.
Ah. So we're all being oppressed by The Mann? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
[ 17. August 2007, 13:49: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
You think the idea that any scientist would do what the dreaded Maggie told them is tenable?
Now, if the claim was that scientists had invented Global Warming just to spite her - that I might believe!
Oh, and for any of that conspiracy to make sense, Maggie would also have had to switched to nuclear power rather than exploiting North Sea gas and oil. Oh, and to have needed GW as an excuse for shafting the miners, rather than the fact they kept attempting to destabilise her government and replace her with Arthur Scargill, which would seem to be quite reason enough. Oh, and one would also have expected Labour to debunk the phoney theory as soon as they got into power in 1997, rather than perpetuating
the lie to the detriment of their own policy. Oh, and one would also expect.... but why go on?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What exactly do you mean by a 'scam'? The "Hockey Stick" has been repeatedly demonstrated to be consistent with other multi-regional estimates of temperature over the last 1000 years or so. ..
Alan, please, the beginning of the Hockey Stick was clearly a scam, deliberately ironing out the Medieval Warm and Mini Ice Age - that's how this theory got off the ground! There was a distinct change in emphasis around '95/96 - this was when Mann and his coterie, whoever they were, came to direct the agenda. For goodness sake man, how can it not ring warning bells for you when it's pointed out that two crucial statements were deliberately taken out of the '96 IPCC report? Based on the same data it was originally summarised that there was no provable or significant connection between man's imput and global warming. Then the original Mann Hockey Stick became the flag for the campaign to prove the opposite by manipulating data and creating unsubstantiated scares, and it really has been thoroughly discredited as we've already been over here. The Hockey Stick is still a joke, a scam which denies extremes of climate variation of which we're in but one phase, not at all out of the ordinary.
The whole man-made global warming scare is built on nothing but hot air of those working to their own agendas, whatever they are, it is not science: 1)CO2 is not shown to be significant in raising global temperature, 2) the climate variation we're in is not out of the ordinary and 3)there is no correlation between the rise of industrial output and the rise in temperature since the last mini ice age. What the f. are you building this theory on?
quote:
OK, so let me try and get this straight. You're willing to accept the authority of a non-scientist who you clearly acknowledge as being a political advisor. Yet, you're not willing to accept the authority of qualified scientists because they also advice politicians. What is your position on the issue of political advice? Are you going to reject the opinions of anyone who advises politicians? In which case, stop quoting Monckton. Or, are you going to accept that it's perfectly proper and reasonable for people with relevant expertise to advise politicians? In which case, stop knocking the IPCC for doing exactly that.
I don't take anyone's authority here.. I do take note of the political reality of his insider knowledge to pertinent background history of the rise and rise of global warming and you are being disingenous to keep presuming that "qualified scientists" refers to those who support the theory. There are many qualified scientists who think the theory is junk. Since the basic premise is non-existent, that the three claims above are even rational, it's not even a theory.
Alan, with respect, it's pathetic reasoning, certainly having no claim to be considered scientific. The rest is spin to cover up the absurd non-existence of a rational base for the theory. One doesn't have to be a specialist in any subject to see that simple logic is missing from the base premise.
It may have become mainstream, but every century of our history shows us how easy it is to rally people to ridiculous causes, mainstream is no guarantee of anything. Let's look at the science rationally from qualified scientists who disagree with the theory:
(Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming)
From which re temperature:
quote:
Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."
Where's the correlation between man-made CO2 and global warming?
Where the feck is it?
Why should I go with your "qualified scientists" when I find these, and please do read through their thoughts about it, equally qualified and showing a simple rational logic that still hasn't been answered by you and your ilk.
The basic premise is flawed. You have not and cannot show any proof of the three core claims for the theory.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What the f. are you building this theory on?
Simple. The theory is built on the following solidly established scientific facts.
1) CO2 is shown to be significant in raising global temperature,
2) the climate variation we're in is out of the ordinary and
3) there is a good correlation between the rise of industrial output and the rise in temperature
As I've repeatedly offered good sources to support.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
You actually believe this Myrrh? Rather than the infinitely simpler alternative that the science is reasonable?
Well, this is exactly my gripe here about all aspects of the claim which supposedly back the anthropogenic global warming theory, not one can be held up as reasonable.
So there's been tweaking since the original Mann, but it was the original Mann which drove the global warming scenario and it was deliberately produced to present a skewed view of our climate - by flattening the main past high and low it made it appear that in the last thousand years nothing much changed until the 150 years ago and then the global temperature rose dramatically. That's why it's called the hockey stick - and it went completely against all known and reasonable knowledge of our climate in this period.
That it was finally proved to be ridiculous, flawed methodology etc. and even deliberately created to give this view, any set of random numbers will produce it, has not changed its effect in that this is still the general perception promoted by global warming protagonists - this is not reasonable. This is conman tactics and not worthy of being called science. Science skewed to promote a view is propaganda not science.
This is not ancient history where documentary evidence is scarce, the main argument peaked just over a decade ago. As an example, reasonable people were arguing reasonably against those who promoted this view that the Medieval Warm didn't exist (Sep 26, 1995 by moore@Hoover.Stanford.EDU)
But the agenda driven disingenous science didn't care for reasonable arguments then as it doesn't now. Putting back into our recent history the Medieval Warm and the Mini Ice Age shows that our current warm coming out of the MIA is nothing unusual. Not at all what the agenda driven anthropogenic global warming theorists want known and any amount of jiggling and distractions and downright lies continue to be yelled at us, have to be yelled at us, to hide this simple fact. Where's the problem if we've just come out of the MIA and are now back at similar temperatures to the MWP? (and by much sensible reasoning not yet at high as the MWP).
This in itself is quite sufficient to debunk the theory as it takes away its ground of being, hence we see desperate arguments now to belittle the importance of Mann and his graph's role in this.
This same propaganda machine made other claims to back its view of anthropogenic global warming, none of which is reasonable either (and this is quite apart from the deliberate lies and fakery such as pictures of polar bears on ice floes in the summer melt and the IPCC claims about hurricanes and mosquitoes which deliberately presented scenarios contradicted by contributing scientists, and so on). Taken individually each is of the main claims shows unreasonable science.
Which is more reasonable - that our recent warmth is in the natural highs and lows of global temperature and which finally came out of the last mini ice age around 1950 or that man-made CO2 brought us out of it beginning 150 years ago when industrial CO2 was practically non-existant until after WWII? (when global temperature actually dropped for a few decades).
And this is quite separate from the unreasonable claims still being made for CO2 as the driver of global warming when all facts considered it is unreasonable to claim it is significant? And that's quite separate to the unreasonable claim that the rise in CO2 is undisputed, i.e. proved, when it's no such thing. And so on and so on.
There's nothing reasonable in this theory except that it itself is driven by anthropogenic hot air and deliberate deceit.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Hiro - re unreasonable claims.
Do read all the page for background, but claims about the level of CO2 as undisputed, i.e. proved, is another of the unreasonable claims made by global warming theorists.
quote:
(Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2)
Statement written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation March 2004 Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
....
The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2) . In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].
Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I exposed this misuse of science [3, 9]. Unfortunately, such misuse is not limited to individual publications, but also appears in documents of national and international organizations. For example IPCC not only based its reports on a falsified "Siple curve", but also in its 2001 report[14] used as a flagship the "hockey curve" of temperature, showing that there was no Medieval Warming, and no Little Ice Age, and that the 20th century was unusually warm. The curve was credulously accepted after Mann et al. paper published in NATURE magazine[15]. In a crushing criticism, two independent groups of scientists from disciplines other than climatology [16, 17] (i.e. not supported from the annual pool of many billion "climatic" dollars), convincingly blamed the Mann et al. paper for the improper manipulation and arbitrary rejections of data. The question arises, how such methodically poor paper, contradicting hundreds of excellent studies that demonstrated existence of global range Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, could pass peer review for NATURE? And how could it pass the reviewing process at the IPCC? The apparent scientific weaknesses of IPCC and its lack of impartiality, was diagnosed and criticized in the early 1990s in NATURE editorials [18, 19]. The disease, seems to be persistent.
So far, it is not reasonable to claim our current global temperature is anything out of the ordinary, it is not reasonable to claim that the industrial revolution has driven this current rise in temperature, it is not reasonable to claim our current levels of CO2 are unprecedented, (to come - and it not reasonable to claim that CO2 is significant in driving global warming) and it is not reasonable to conclude that the scientists who dispute the theory are fools especially in light of the proven manipulation of science by the IPCC and global warming protagonists.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
That it [Mann's reconstruction of past climate] was finally proved to be ridiculous, flawed methodology etc. and even deliberately created to give this view
Mann set out to answer a seemingly simple question - "what was the climate, specifically temperature, like in the past?" He wasn't the first, nor the last, to ask that question and seek to answer it. But, it's not an easy question to answer. There are two big problems to be addressed, and how they're addressed will affect the answer.
The first problem is that we only have instrumental measurements going back a couple of centuries or so. That means that to study the climate earlier than that we need to look at proxy data, things that are affected by climate but not direct measurements of the climate. These proxy's can include ice core data (especially oxygen isotope ratios that give the temperature of the air when the ice formed), tree rings (with different conditions favouring more or less growth in any season) and anecdotal evidence (eg: diaries of people recording that the summer was dry, or paintings of the Thames frozen). Different proxies are sensitive to the climate in different ways, and some are a lot easier to assess.
The second problem is that your data, whether direct measurement or proxy, is specific to a given time and place. Given that specificity, how do you convert a set of data for London to a set of average values, even to give "the mean noon temperature in winter" isn't necessarily straight forward - when you then try to get a mean global average temperature, which is what is commonly reported, you face even bigger problems. Given that most data is biased geographically as well (instruments until recently were concentrated in developed countries, ice cores come from polar regions except for a few glaciers, different species of tree grow in different areas etc), and you're facing a really tough problem.
Given the above it's not surprising that any one data set will be challenged, both on the selection of data and the methodology used to interpret that data. Which is why a body like the IPCC collates as many independent data sets as possible. The latest report uses 12 for the Northern Hemisphere, including the data from Mann. And, you know what? They're all basically consistent with the "Hockey Stick" - that is, 12 independent data sets produced by independent teams of scientists using different proxies and different methodologies get basically the same result. There's a nice set of graphics on p467 of this years WGI report.
So, far from "ridiculous, flawed methodology" the work of Mann has stood up well under stringent scrutiny. And, the acid test has been passed - that is his work has been repeated, reproducing basically the same outcome.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
That it [Mann's reconstruction of past climate] was finally proved to be ridiculous, flawed methodology etc. and even deliberately created to give this view
Mann set out to answer a seemingly simple question - "what was the climate, specifically temperature, like in the past?" He wasn't the first, nor the last, to ask that question and seek to answer it. But, it's not an easy question to answer. There are two big problems to be addressed, and how they're addressed will affect the answer.
Alan, I have read quite a lot of the 'history' of this dispute and try as you will to convince me that Mann's concern was for good science I now think otherwise.
What I have been trying to explain is that I've found enough evidence of corrupt science from the global warming theorists to be convinced that this wasn't even bad science by error, but by deliberate manipulation. Mann's 1998 Hockey Stick completely flattened out the MWP and the MIA - even a non-expert like myself could recognise that this was really weird as it went against all received wisdom.
Further research in both camps showed that around a decade ago those promoting the idea of man-made global warming turned the corner and were able to force this idea into prominence - based primarily on this Hockey Stick graph. To the extent that Mann's influence in the IPCC grew, around '95/96, he gained greater control over the publication of global temperature data and jettisoned graphs which had been used previously in the IPCC reports after producing his Hockey Stick, the 2001 report used his graph prominently whereas previous graphs showed both the Medieval Warm and Mini Ice Age.
This takeover began as previously noted here, (on the Seitz link) with the two critical paragraphs taken out of the summary which said that the recent global warming 'could not be attributed to anthropogenic imput'. However, it wasn't until the 2001 report that Mann & Co found themselves in a strong enough position to completely screw with scientists imput by promoting his Hockey Stick anthropogenic global warming theory contrary to simple common sense.
How can you not be appalled to learn of this? I'm really amazed that this aspect appears not to bother you at all. I'll put a link to it again at the end, perhaps you missed it first time around, but let's go back to Mann's imput when this argument was raging - we're still in the early nineties - when the coterie of global warming theorists were warming up to the task they'd set themselves.
quote:
In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "
And by 1998 Mann had accomplished exactly that.
Coincidence or what?
How? Firstly by using proxy data which was not considered acceptable to establish climate change, bristlecone pines, and secondly by deliberately creating a computer model which eliminated the MWP and MIA. It completely flattened out past temperatures in so refined a model that one can put in any series of random numbers and get the Hockey Stick every time.
He then spent a considerable amount of energy over the next years withholding the data he'd used and his method of arriving at his graph. It has been thoroughly discredited now, but the damage has been done. Science itself has been discredited because of it and there is now a global industry based on this so-called peer reviewed science and itself busy maintaining the fiction.
Actually this aspect has become paramount and the subtleties of manipulation have become tiresome to spot in the vast amount of information now available. I'm sorry, but I simply can't take seriously data from any scientist who defends him now because it's proved to me beyond all reasonable doubt to be a deliberate scam.
The above quote from Deming is available in several places and it was in Monckton's piece I posted above, but I've taken it from a yahoo answers page which has an explanation of Mann's agenda graph together with a link to a pdf file which shows a comparison of the Hockey Stick with several other graphs generated from random numbers, but I haven't been able to get the pdf up for some reason. Perhaps you'll let me know what it looks like... ?
(Is Mann's Hockey Stick valid?)
Still in the nineties, a quick look at what else was in play in this scam:
quote:
(Holocaust Or Hoax? - The Global Warming Debate Heats Up By Leland Lehrman 4-26-7)
..
Let's start with the infamous 1992 quote of Richard Sandor, Chairman and CEO of the Chicago Climate Exchange, the commercial brainchild of Al Gore's supposedly well-intentioned efforts to alert the world to "global warming:"
"Air and water are no longer the free goods that economics once assumed. They must be redefined as property rights so that they can be efficiently allocated."
.....
Adding to my confusion, the normally reputable and fearless Alex Jones and his brilliant young British colleague Paul Joseph Watson of infowars.com recently attacked both the science and the policy objectives behind global warming. They cited a perceptive article by Daniel Taylor which spells out concerns which I share:
"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself"
The article also gives more background about the Mann data as manipulated by so called peer review and together with the above and the Seitz link below, tell me again that the global warming theory is based on solid peer reviewed science...
I hope you can see my problem here, Alan. Rather a lot of links, but I wanted to make it clear that I have absolutely no reason to take your explanations 'that further climate graphs confirm Mann' at all seriously because the 1998 Mann is so obviously flawed even without knowing how it was engineered and pushed to prominence.
Myrrh
The full Deming statement is here: (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing Statements Date: 12/06/2006)
And please, think about what Seitz is saying here - this is a terrible condemnation of the IPCC and puts at zero any claim to its reports being approved by the contributing scientists: (A Major Deception on Global Warming)
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
For a graphic of the Mann 1998 Hockey Stick in all its glory -
(Hockey Stick)
And just how ridiculous does this sound "We roughly agree with the substance of their findings," says Gerald North, the committee's chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station." when he goes on to say "In particular, he says, the committee has a "high level of confidence" that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries."
Yeah right, but one can't see where they'd get their high level of confidence to even "roughly agree" with Mann 1998 since the Mini Ice Age ain't there...
Disingenous gobbledegook passes for peer reviewed science in this subject.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Mann's 1998 Hockey Stick completely flattened out the MWP and the MIA - even a non-expert like myself could recognise that this was really weird as it went against all received wisdom.
What's this "received wisdom"? That European records show a relatively warm period in the Middle Ages (around 800-1300AD) and a relatively cold period around 1650-1800AD? Well, it's received wisdom ... the big question is "is it right?" That Europe (or, Western Europe at least) experienced these temperature variations isn't in dispute. The big question is to what extent these events affect the mean global (or even Northern Hemisphere) temperature? The answer appears to be "not all that much really". Should that be a surprise? Probably not, if anyone was to think about it carefully. We know from direct observations that there are ocean current influenced climate events that are global in effect, but the effects aren't uniform. In the current epoch the El Nino/La Nina oscillation in the southern Pacific is the biggest one; during El Nino years, South America is generally warmer and drier than usual; warmer winters in Northern USA and Canada, cooler in the SW States; drier and cooler summers in Australia; etc. Clearly if the biggest climate variations we regularly see now warm some areas of the globe and cool others, why would we expect the MWP and LIA to be global? If they weren't global, or even limited to the Northern Hemisphere, then we'd expect global/NH reconstructions of climate to flatten out these events.
And, as an aside, the 1998/99 Mann papers covered a period from 1000AD onwards. That means that, at best, he'd have picked up on the end of the MWP (if it had the hemispheric effect in temperature needed to not be flattened out). Therefore, it seems strange that that data would be used to comment on the MWP at all - you'd really need the data to go back further so you get the start of the MWP too.
I'm not sure what to make of people repeating the "we must get rid of the MWP" quote. Clearly people are quoting it as though it proves a conspiracy. But, as I don't know the original context I can see several innocent explanations for why Mann would say that - especially if it was in the context of an informal chat with a colleague about what the data he had was showing. The most obvious being that the data shows that the MWP (and LIA) weren't global temperature events, and therefore climatologists need to "get rid of" talk that implies that they were anything other than phenomena that affected temperatures in Europe.
And, of course, if you're sticking with the conspiracy hypothesis then you need to not just include Mann in the conspiracy. You need to prove that the other teams of scientists independently reconstructing the past temperature record also deliberately falsified or mis-analysed their data to produce plots similar to Mann's Hockey Stick. One data set being hyped is bad science. But, most people recognise reproducibility as a mark of good science, and therefore a dozen independent data sets showing a consistent picture of the past temperature is a mark of good science - ie: despite some minor statistical errors and potentially poor choice of bristle cone pines as one of his proxies, Mann got it about right.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Hi Myrrh,
Sorry, I'm still not interested in debating the science of global warming: neither of us are involved enough for our opinions to matter in the slightest. I'm also still not interested in op-ed pieces in the Wall Street Journal, nor posters on malaysia.answers.yahoo.com. - neither seem particularly authoritive sources of information (to say the least).
However, my previous offer still stands. Find me one long-established scientific organisation anywhere in the world that backs your conspiracy version, and I'll gladly read all of those links.
quote:
The above quote from Deming is available in several places and it was in Monckton's piece I posted above
Hang on, if Deming was so shocked then why didn't he keep a copy of this explosive email? And why isn't naming the person? "Oh yeah, someone I won't name but is REALLY important said something about getting rid of the MWP, but I won't give you the quote in its full context because...uhh...". Again, this is not convincing in the least.
Please, find one major scientific organisation back up your version of events. After all, wouldn't it be in Russian or Chinese or even North Korean interests to demonstrate that western governments had been lying to everyone for so long? Just one will do, anywhere. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) I'd LOVE to believe it's a scam!
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Mann's 1998 Hockey Stick completely flattened out the MWP and the MIA - even a non-expert like myself could recognise that this was really weird as it went against all received wisdom.
What's this "received wisdom"? That European records show a relatively warm period in the Middle Ages (around 800-1300AD) and a relatively cold period around 1650-1800AD? Well, it's received wisdom ... the big question is "is it right?" That Europe (or, Western Europe at least) experienced these temperature variations isn't in dispute. The big question is to what extent these events affect the mean global (or even Northern Hemisphere) temperature? The answer appears to be "not all that much really". Should that be a surprise? Probably not, if anyone was to think about it carefully. We know from direct observations that there are ocean current influenced climate events that are global in effect, but the effects aren't uniform. In the current epoch the El Nino/La Nina oscillation in the southern Pacific is the biggest one; during El Nino years, South America is generally warmer and drier than usual; warmer winters in Northern USA and Canada, cooler in the SW States; drier and cooler summers in Australia; etc. Clearly if the biggest climate variations we regularly see now warm some areas of the globe and cool others, why would we expect the MWP and LIA to be global? If they weren't global, or even limited to the Northern Hemisphere, then we'd expect global/NH reconstructions of climate to flatten out these events.
So what's your explanation for the disappearance of the global MWP and MIA as produced by the IPCC 1995 report?
Why was the Hockey Stick which covered the Northern Hemisphere relabelled (Fig.5 The `Hockey Stick' according to the U.S. `National Assessment' in link below) - "1000 Years of Global CO2 and Temperature Change"?
Relegating the MWP/MIA to 'Europe' is part of the spin to eliminate them. Global warmists who produce this seemingly endless stream of propaganda denying their existence need to do so because climate facts falsify their theory, and, for this they are not due any respect at all as scientists.
I'm disappointed that any scientist would knowingly want to support such for whatever reason in the variety of agendas, but simple fraud and complex ideology driven campaigns are a recognised part of human behaviour. What makes "science" think it's any different or immune from being taken over by a man and his mission?
And a successful fraudster uses accepted terms to give credibility, the use of "peer reviewed" is the USP here when it's actually missing in the change from "received wisdom" to "Hockey Stick".
Please see the following page for received wisdom - (The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Scienceby John L. Daly)
And please, read it, then we can discuss whether or not the MWP and MIA were global or not. And please, don't detract by attacking the messenger if you have a gripe about him, look at the argument.
quote:
And, as an aside, the 1998/99 Mann papers covered a period from 1000AD onwards. That means that, at best, he'd have picked up on the end of the MWP (if it had the hemispheric effect in temperature needed to not be flattened out). Therefore, it seems strange that that data would be used to comment on the MWP at all - you'd really need the data to go back further so you get the start of the MWP too.
The whole point was to make the Medieval Warm disappear..
And by virtually obliterating the MIA to produce a rise of temperature out of nowhere.
And, anyway, without any evidence that CO2 drives global warming (actually the observed time lag showing that this, if itself accurate, present rise in levels would correlate with the MWP), coupling unhistoric industrial production to it and so creating a totally imaginary scenario.
quote:
I'm not sure what to make of people repeating the "we must get rid of the MWP" quote. Clearly people are quoting it as though it proves a conspiracy. But, as I don't know the original context I can see several innocent explanations for why Mann would say that - especially if it was in the context of an informal chat with a colleague about what the data he had was showing. The most obvious being that the data shows that the MWP (and LIA) weren't global temperature events, and therefore climatologists need to "get rid of" talk that implies that they were anything other than phenomena that affected temperatures in Europe.
See above re global. But you're not taking into account the history of this argument. It was imperative for Mann & Co (for whatever agenda) to get rid of the MWP and MIA as they show the theory for the nonsense it is.
There was a definite change in the IPCC agenda from the time Mann & Co gained the upper hand among those setting policy, mid nineties. Again, the same point I've been trying to make here, from the above link: quote:
In every other science when such a drastic revision of previously accepted knowledge is promulgated, there is considerable debate and initial scepticism, the new theory facing a gauntlet of criticism and intense review. Only if a new idea survives that process does it become broadly accepted by the scientific peer group and the public at large.
This never happened with Mann's `Hockey Stick'. The coup was total, bloodless, and swift as Mann's paper was greeted with a chorus of uncritical approval from the greenhouse industry. Within the space of only 12 months, the theory had become entrenched as a new orthodoxy.
The ultimate consummation of the new theory came with the release of the draft of the Third Assessment Report (TAR-2000) [11] of the IPCC. Overturning its own previous view in the 1995 report, the IPCC presented the `Hockey Stick' as the new orthodoxy with hardly an apology or explanation for the abrupt U-turn since its 1995 report. They could not even offer any scientific justification for their new line.
So you tell what happened here to peer review.
quote:
And, of course, if you're sticking with the conspiracy hypothesis then you need to not just include Mann in the conspiracy. You need to prove that the other teams of scientists independently reconstructing the past temperature record also deliberately falsified or mis-analysed their data to produce plots similar to Mann's Hockey Stick. One data set being hyped is bad science. But, most people recognise reproducibility as a mark of good science, and therefore a dozen independent data sets showing a consistent picture of the past temperature is a mark of good science - ie: despite some minor statistical errors and potentially poor choice of bristle cone pines as one of his proxies, Mann got it about right.
This is the history of the change - we have documentary evidence showing what actually happened. This is not ancient history, but only a DECADE. We have the story as recorded.
If it walks like a duck.., we can see for ourselves it's a scam. I really don't have to go into researching everyone who was involved in the scam or now backing the scam to show the scam exists.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Sorry to be so late getting back to this. I've been away, and was extrememly busy prior to that quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
So what's your explanation for the disappearance of the global MWP and MIA as produced by the IPCC 1995 report?
I'm not sure where I'd get a copy of the 1995 IPCC report, the IPCC website has the SPMs but not the full report. Nevertheless, the 1995 SPM from WGI doesn't mention the MWP or MIA as far as I can see from a quick read. It does, however, have this to say about the 20th century data then available quote:
The limited available evidence from proxy climate indicators suggests that the 20th century global mean temperature is at least as warm as any other century since at least 1400 A.D. Data prior to 1400 are too sparse to allow the reliable estimation of global mean temperature.
Note that last sentence. That means that in 1995 the IPCC didn't consider it possible to estimate pre-1400 global mean temperatures because of insufficient data then available. No pre 1400 global data means no comment on the MWP outwith western Europe. Of course, we now have a load more data. Mann, and other groups, had produced proxy data going back to 1000AD which went into the 2001 IPCC report, and even more data pushing that back even further has gone into the most recent one.
So, to answer your question. First, I've no real evidence that in 1995 the IPCC said much about either the MWP or LIA; whatever was in the main report wasn't considered important enough to include in the SPM. Second, even if the IPCC had the MWP and LIA in their 1995 report, they disappear in later reports simply because there now exists the data that shows that the impact of these events didn't result in any significant change in mean global temperature. These regional events disappear from the global averages because better data has shown that they don't impact global averages.
quote:
Why was the Hockey Stick which covered the Northern Hemisphere relabelled (Fig.5 The `Hockey Stick' according to the U.S. `National Assessment' in link below) - "1000 Years of Global CO2 and Temperature Change"?
When I look at that figure on the John Daly site there is one thing that strikes me. That is, he says it's drawn from a US National Assessment, he even gives a citation. Here is the National Assessment he cites. Read through chapter 1 of that report, which is where the evidence for climate change is presented and you'll find a plot including Mann's Hockey Stick. In the USGCRP report it's clearly labelled "Northern Hemisphere". Admittedly it doesn't have the error bars that Mann includes in his original paper (and that are reproduced in the 2001 IPCC report). Put quite simply, John Daly produces a graph that he claims comes from a USGCRP report and procedes to criticise it. That graph is not in the report he claims to have taken it from.
quote:
Please see the following page for received wisdom - (The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Scienceby John L. Daly)
And please, read it, then we can discuss whether or not the MWP and MIA were global or not. And please, don't detract by attacking the messenger if you have a gripe about him, look at the argument.
As I've just said, I've had a look at that site. If the fact that he reproduces a graph that doesn't exist in the report he claims it comes from isn't enough to raise questions about the value of his contribution to the debate, his arguments against the use of tree rings are practically identical to the words of caution about tree rings in the 2001 IPCC report. He's not exactly telling climate scientists something they didn't already know, and something for which they had already taken steps to attempt to minimize the impact of on the data they wanted and included within their uncertainty estimates.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
It's not disputed because [the question 'is climate change real'] is no longer considered a scientifically interesting topic to discuss at academic conferences or in the journals: the scientists overwhelming agree. Real debate has moved to other issues, and did so long ago [/QB]
Here is one such issue, with theological overtones, which may warrant a new thread. (It actually came up in a meeting of church leaders from Pacific Island countries.)
People in the low-lying islands of the Pacific can see directly that the sea-level has been rising over the last decade or two: at spring tide, the sea often washes over most of the island! Nevertheless some church elders say say that we don’t have to worry about the sea inundating our island (or take action to mitigate this) because God promised Noah that never again shall there be a flood to lay waste the earth.
How should a Minister respond to this, which is undoubtedly a serious theological question to those concerned?
One response that was given at the meeting was : God promised that He would not make such a flood, but Noah made no promise that human kind would not do so.
What other responses can Shipmates suggest?
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The other response is that in the Genesis record God says he's never again going to destroy all life by flood. It doesn't say that floods won't destroy some life, and lay waste to parts of the earth.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Hi Tukai,
I'm not a Christian and can't give you much in the way of theological answers. That said, it sounds like your answer is pretty good: it's not God who is digging up the coal and oil, and he's not the one burning it in such a hurry.
As Alan says, there's no particular reason to believe this will destroy everything, and so there is no contradiction with God's promise whatsoever. That said, the next hundred years are looking bleak for big chunks of the world unless we change soon. To me, that's a bad enough issue to take seriously, regardless of the worst-case scenarios.
[Btw to people in the UK: Channel 4 are hosting a climate change discussion tonight at 7.30pm. It's called "The Great Green Debate" and has scientists trying to explain to a skeptical lay audience why there's a problem. Sounds interesting, if you're into that kinda thang.]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Relating to a Christian response to climate change:
quote:
From The Guardian:
Yesterday Christian, Shia, Sunni, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist and Jewish religious leaders took a boat to the tongue of the glacier for a silent prayer for the planet. They were invited by Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of 250 million Orthodox Christians worldwide.
I might not know much about this religious stuff, but Bartholomew I sounds like a great bloke. I'll definitely be voting for him as next Pope. Sadly, it was somewhat overshadowed by recent Greenland research showing the IPCC projections may be pretty conservative:
quote:
The Greenland ice cap is melting so quickly that it is triggering earthquakes as pieces of ice several cubic kilometres in size break off.
The glacier at Ilulissat, which supposedly spawned the iceberg that sank the Titantic, is now flowing three times faster into the sea than it was 10 years ago.
[...] the quakes were triggered because ice had broken away after being fused to the rock for hundreds of years. The quakes were not vast - on a magnitude of 1 to 3 - but had never happened before in north-west Greenland and showed potential for the entire ice sheet to collapse.
This makes the IPCC sea-level rise predictions look optimistic. Adios Amsterdam?
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
it was somewhat overshadowed by recent Greenland research showing the IPCC projections may be pretty conservative
Which, is hardly surprising. The nature and role of the IPCC will naturally make it conservative. It's role is to inform policy makers by presenting the best supported scientific data. That would naturally mean that data that's not been well documented or where the uncertainties are very large won't feature prominantly.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The nature and role of the IPCC will naturally make it conservative. It's role is to inform policy makers by presenting the best supported scientific data.
Absolutely. If it wasn't so conservative, it wouldn't carry the weight it does.
However, the IPCC's original mandate was to determine the most likely result of global warming, and there was some discussion at the time if this was the right aim. In many ways it'd be good to also know the worst case scenario (say, with a 5% chance of occuring). After all, military and business planning will look at serious negative outcomes that are much less than 50% likely.
While cautious language is good science, most people are unused to it. I think there's a widespread assumption that that the IPCC is promoting an extreme view, the carbon industries are presenting another, and the truth lies in between. This is untrue: because of the conservative nature of the IPCC, the reality is likely to be worse. We're used to hearing spin, and the idea of an organisation putting out honest and cautious claims is pretty alien to us now.
James Hansen wrote an interesting piece on this:
quote:
I suggest that a `scientific reticence' is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.
There is, in my opinion, a huge gap between what is understood about human-made global warming and its consequences, and what is known by the people who most need to know, the public and policy makers. The IPCC is doing a commendable job, but we need something more. Given the reticence that the IPCC necessarily exhibits, there need to be supplementary mechanisms. The onus, it seems to me, falls on us scientists as a community.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Woman made global warming?
quote:
If you were asked to name the biggest global-warming villains of the past 30 years, here’s one name that probably wouldn’t spring to mind: Jane Fonda. But should it?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
You can blame Jane Fonda for a lot of things - Barbarella for example - but it seems a bit harsh to pin global warming on her!
Jonah
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh on another thread:
Alan, to be precise, CO2 as a greenhouse gas has not been proved to have any significant effect on global warming.
Bullshit. The effect of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures has been known for 100 years or more.
quote:
If you really think that our piddling amount of extra CO2 has the capability of changing that pattern
I wouldn't call something over 30% increase in CO2 concentrations in the last 100 years a "piddling amount". That's a 30+% increase over the highest levels of CO2 in the last 450ky, 30% or more over what the natural cycle of recent times has produced.
quote:
... then we should be pumping more of it into the atmosphere
And the logic of that is? We're screwing massively with the climate, making it less hospitable for the species that have evolved over the last few million years (including humans), and so therefore we should screw it all up even more????
quote:
Sigh, not only have you decided to go with those whose express purpose was to flatten out our recent 2000 year high of the Medieval Warm to create data for this silly concept
You're referring, again, to the work of Mann et al I take it, and the so-called "hockey stick" that their data shows. I notice you haven't responded to my last reply to you. The one where I point out that the source you give supporting your claim of 'scientific fraud' on the part of Mann et al makes that claim based largely on a plot from a USGCRP report that, a plot that simply doesn't exist in the report he claims he took it from. Do you realise how unconvincing a claim of scientific fraud is from someone who fabricates figures? Do you really you want to try and convince me to accept people who fake data to prove other people have faked data?
quote:
you are still completely ignoring the fact that temperatures rise and fall dramatically over time with or without our imput and have nothing to say of the pattern of warming and cooling we are in which has been going on for the last 450,000 years without our last 50 years of industrial extra CO2.
If you read what I've said on this thread then you'll see that I'm perfectly happy to talk about the natural cycles of warming and cooling. In fact, the whole thing about those cycles is that they show how unusual the current changes in atmospheric chemistry and the associated warming are. Yes, the warming is small compared to the rise at the end of previous glaciations, but it's occuring in the middle of an interglacial rather than the start of one. Yes, the rise on CO2 concentrations is similar to that following the end of a glaciation, but it's happening in the middle of an interglacial. Basically, from the pattern of temperature and atmospheric chemistry over the last 450ky we can easily deduce that the current changes will take us out of that cycle completely. Which is distinctly unnatural.
quote:
in section IV Climate Models Are Unconvincing - "The burden of proof rests with those claiming anthropogenic warming. Because mitigating climate change would entail huge costs, and because past warming episodes have been natural, it is up to climate scientists to dispel all reasonable doubts---not to climate skeptics to prove them wrong."
Seems to be a disconnected set of concepts.
First, the title is wrong. Climate models are extremely convincing. In that, for example, they can reasonably well reproduce past climates. And, if you run the models with and without anthropogenic effects the ones without show a slow temperature decrease and those with show a rapid rise that almost exactly matches observations. You can't really do better with a model than have it reproduce direct observations.
Second, the burden of proof has shifted. The evidence is strongly in favour of anthropogenic warming. The burden of proof rests with those who would claim that the best scientists in the field are wrong. As climate scientists have dispeled all reasonable doubt, at least for people willing to put aside their prejudices and commitments to the views of the oil companies who pay them, I'm not sure what the skeptics want.
And, finally, I'm not sure mitigating climate change would entail huge costs. At least, not necessarily any bigger than the cost of living with a changing climate. Does it actually cost more to improve fuel efficiency, develop non-carbon energy sources, drive and fly a lot less, etc than it costs to build massive flood defenses and develop new crops and livestock that can thrive in different conditions? Let alone the costs of millions of people needlessly dieing from heat stroke, disease, starvation and storms, and the millions more displaced from their homes seeking refuge elsewhere ... and that the pressures in many parts of the world will result in increases tensions between nations and groups trying to secure the resources they need to cope, leading inevitably to more war and suffering.
Unfortunately, we've probably delayed too long and we're likely have to incur some of the costs of adapting anyway ... but I don't think we've gone too far, and that cutting our carbon footprints will reduce the amount we'll eventually have to pay.
quote:
As I have said to you many times before: a) you have not proved that there is such a thing as global warming (we're in a similar pattern of cooling as clearly shown in for the last 450ky), b) you have not proved that CO2 drives global warming, c) you have not proved either the amount of CO2 we have now is significantly different to the last century nor proved that the amount claimed for the last century is accurate and c) you still cannot show any correlation of man-made CO2 to rising temperatures
Well, taking your points ...
a) The evidence is clear. The earth is warming at about 0.2°C per decade, and that warming appears to be accelerating. That's from instruments around the world, not from any paleoclimate reconstructions.
b) CO2 is well known as a greenhouse gas, it has been known for a century or more. What is there to prove? That physics is physics?
c) we have instrumental measurements of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere for the last 50 years or so. They have been increasing steadily. We have samples of atmospheric gases trapped in ice from the poles (and other glaciers) that take the record back further than that - not just the last few centuries but over the course of several glacial/interglacial cycles over the last 450ky. You either accept these records, or not. If you don't accept them then you can't appeal to data about the natural cycles.
d) the correlation is clear. Just take a plot of temperature over the last few centuries and one of atmospheric chemistry (CO2, NO2, methane etc concentrations). The correlation is blindingly obvious. Of course, one could argue that correlation doesn't imply causation. But a good correlation coupled with a well understood mechanism and supported by well founded models does make causation much more likely.
quote:
In other words you don't have a theory, you have fantasy masquerading as science.
No, I have a whole heap of extremely good scientific data, theory and models all telling the same story. And, you have a handful of cranks and oil-industry funded "think tanks" producing ill-informed, ignorant and down-right fraudelent claims. Where's the fantasy?
quote:
And that's all I have to say about it.
In which case, why don't you shut up?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
It's nice to see that the Nobel prize committee can recognise real science when they see it.
Al Gore and the IPCC share the prize.
Good.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Excellent news, although I wonder if it'll make much difference to people's opinions. Last I saw, the denial blogs were saying "it just shows how little a Nobel Peace Prize means these days". ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Excellent news, although I wonder if it'll make much difference to people's opinions.
It won't change everyone's
quote:
In an interim decision, the British High Court ruled that such partisan works cannot be presented in schools without identifying them for what they are.
Teachers who mislead their pupils into thinking that Gore's film accurately represents the science of global warming are in violation of the "Political indoctrination" section of the country's Education Act of 1996, which explicitly requires that: "The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall forbid ... the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school."
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
I haven't seen the film but in what way is it political? I understood it to present the majority view of scientists qualified in the field of climate science. AIUI, it contained some relatively minor inaccuracies but the core message still presents what scientists say is true beyond any reasonable doubt.
Deniers claiming that it is political dogma are surely grasping at straws, just to try to get something they don't like banned.
But then as I said, I haven't seen it.
[ 12. October 2007, 11:19: Message edited by: Clint Boggis ]
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Clint Boggis,
An Inconvenient Truth is scientifically pretty accurate according to most climate scientists I've read. The judge in the case identified nine problems, e.g.:- Using Kilimanjaro as an example of global warming. [Bad choice. It's actually one of the few melting for other reasons.]
- Gore described a potential 20 feet rise in sea level. [20 feet is fair, but he didn't point out the mainstream consensus is it'd take 1000+ years. However, the melting could become irreversible very soon, even if it took longer to play out.]
- The ice-core link between CO2 and temperature was explained too simplistically. [CO2 causes interglacial warming by providing a feedback mechanism, not the initial trigger.]
- The film attributes specific events to global warming - e.g. hurricane Katrina and coral bleaching. [It's impossible to say if any one event is the result of climate change, but you can say it makes these types of event more likely.]
The judge didn't ban the film, but said it should be shown with advice pointing out these problems.
The Financial Post's reporting seems pretty skewed to me:
quote:
Should children become tools of propagandists, their schools able to serve as indoctrination centres that teach students to parrot the views of the powers-that-be rather than think for themselves?
On the other hand, I can understand why it's accused of being political. There are a few jabs at George Bush, and lots of time spent focusing on Al Gore's childhood. Personally, I didn't think the film was great, but it's been undeniably powerful and the core science is pretty sound.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
I've seen the film (and the DVD), I've read the book, and... I saw Al Gore give a live presentation of it. The live presentation had a few political asides (lighthearted ones -- he has a very dry sense of humor). But the film is not at all political. But the assumption is probably that because it was made by a (former) politician, it is political.
Congratulations, Al!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
