I'm going to dumb it down a notch.
If you walk into a room that has the heater running full blast and crack open an ice cold beer that doesn't mean the rest of the room isn't hotter than it should be.
Indian Government Marginalizes UN IPCC
- Thread starter T'Girl
- Start date
If you walk into a room that has the heater running full blast and crack open an ice cold beer that doesn't mean the rest of the room isn't hotter than it should be.
And again, same thing: a smear campaign against scientists that somehow misses addressing the specifics of the science. Instead it's just vague hand waving about massaged data with little to no actual concrete evidence. Comparing climate change research to nazism and fascism? Really?
And again on the Himalayan thing... the ice there is most definitely, with out a doubt retreating. The specific data in the IPCC report was wrong but it doesn't matter because the overall picture is correct. A single, small part of a report being wrong does not invalidate the entire thing.
Here's another article for you: http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2010/01/omigosh_the_ipcc_made_a_mistak.php
The purpose of my comment was to show that Exxon-Mobile money isn't the only thing that can motivate someone to fudge data, and that money isn't the only reason that science goes awry.
As for a smear, Nazism was a science-based philosophy. It ended up discrediting the science it was based on.
Suppose AGW advocates have their way and millions die because we'll have converted food to fuel, denied them basic infrastructure like cheap powerplants, and slashed all environmental spending that isn't aimed directly at 'saving us' from balmy temperatures. The aftermath would be much the same. We've already done something similar with the elimination of DDT.
As for "little concrete evidence," why are there criminal complaints against the scientists? Why are lead authors of the IPCC report calling for the whole edifice to be overhauled or abandoned? Why did the Department of Energy issue 'do not destroy' letters from their lawyers warning DOE employees to abandon standard data deletion protocols and preserve everything they had for a possible criminal inquiry into fraud and conspiracy?
No, the overall picture is NOT correct. The IPCC said the glaciers would all be gone by in 25 years. It was false, wildly false (even at the rates measured during the hottest part of the 1990's, the melt would take many centuries), and known to be false. They said it anyway.
Which is laughably out of touch or out of date. There are now known to be many, many dozens of non-peer reviewed citations and conclusions in the IPCC AR4 report, eighteen from the World Wildlife Fund alone, including the bogus Amazon rainforest portion. There are nine masters theses cited, two of them unpublished and none peer reviewed. There were 31 PhD theses cited, none peer reviewed. They even cited blurbs from Greenpeace.
Under the rules laid out for the IPCC, they were allowed to cite ZERO non-peer reviewed sources.
But to make sure that IPCC reports didn't contain a hint of skepticism or doubt, Phil Jones and his colleagues threatened to "redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is!" [his exclaimation point].
That's not science. It's garbage.
And without evidence, all you're doing is speaking in hypotheticals. I'll take the facts, thanks!
That's nice. It's still a smear and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's just another distraction and mudraking technique... the bread and butter of the anti-science agenda.
And you are wrong. The glaciers are receding. That is a fact. The specific date does not matter. Drawing all this attention to the error in the IPCC report and downplaying the facts is evidence of a politically motivated argument and not a scientific one. I posted the link for this upthread, but here's the relevant excerpt:
And back to you...
Once again... the existences of errors in the IPCC report does not automagically invalidate the entire thing. Each specific claim must be evaluated on its own. You can't just say "there's a few errors!" and wave your hands and dismiss the entire thing. That would be convenient for you, I'm sure, but not particularly accurate.
As for detecting the difference between science and garbage... considering the vast majority of your posts are full of smears instead of actual scientific discussion, I'm not really so confident in your ability to tell the difference.
I never said they weren't. In fact, they'd better be because we're in an inter-glacial period.
47 billion tons of ice is only 51 cubic kilometers. Ice sheet masses are measured in tens of millions of cubic kilometers. Learn some math so you're not such a patsy.
In the past 50 years those 95% of Chinese glaciers you mentioned have decreased in extent by only 4.5% So how the heck can you support the IPCC's claim that they'll disappear in just 25 years? In real science, rates matter. Otherwise we might as well ignore our emissions because the sun is going to swell into a red-giant in a couple of years.
The Himalayan glacier claim wasn't a mistake by the IPCC. The lead author admits it was included on purpose, even though they knew there was no data to support it. THEY LIED.
Further, new research by NASA shows that the retreat of the Himalayan glaciers has nothing to do with global warming. It's being caused by black carbon soot from burning coal and wood.
Well, to keep this poor thread alive I'll post a little Hamelt spoof I wrote a month ago.
My take on the e-mail situation, quite common judging from public comments in places like the Washington Post, is that if the data actually supported their case then they wouldn’t spend so much time committing fraud or violating the law to delete information subject to FOIA requests, kind of like asserting your innocence the day after your estranged ex-wife disappeared and you’ve been caught wiping down the inside of the trunk of your car with bleach: Nobody buys it.
As Hamlet said:
To cheat, or not to cheat, – that is the question: -
Whether ‘tis easier in science to create
The graphs and charts by manipulation,
and make fake warming from all too flat data,
So by amending trend it? – To lie, to cheat, -
What’s more, and by a cheat to say we use
A trick, aye, and the thousand clever tweaks
Our code is known for, – toward a conclusion
Devoutly to be wish’d. To lie, to cheat; -
To cheat, perchance to scheme: – ay, there’s the rub;
For from those peaking temps what schemes may come,
When we have shuffled all this data just
To serve a cause: Raise the prospect
That makes calamity of a long life,
For who would bear the higher temps in time,
The oppressive heat, the planet’s undoing?
Harangues our global gov: “this end – delay!”
Doth not the British Met office daily warn
This gradient cannot be sustained?
So what man would speak bare truths
When he himself might the planet save
With naked fibbing? Who would these taxes bear,
To grunt and sweat under onerous rates,
But that the dread of planetary death,
The predicted future, for whose doom
No taxpayer yearns, – will foot the bill,
And makes us rather feed the till this day
Than wait for the costs that we know naught of?
Thus the science does make patsies of us all;
And thus the native dose of common sense
Is shouted o’er with the pretense of science;
And many countries of great wealth and fortune
Will then collapse, their currencies awry,
And lose the name of nations. But e-mails
Our plot hath exposed! Now, in editorials
Be all our sins considered.
***
Well, it didn’t actually say that in the folios, but I applied a standard statistical model well accepted in the peer-reviewed Shakespeare literature to adjust for transcription errors, creating a more accurate and meaningful quote from the raw passage, which I unfortunately deleted when I moved from the halfway house to my double-wide because my trailer didn’t have enough room to store it. Nevertheless, it’s quite clear even in the small fragments of the raw play that are still available that Hamlet was a play about climate change, such as:
Claudius: How is it that the clouds still hang on you?
Hamlet: Not so my lord; I am too much i’ the sun
This exchange serves as a proxy for most of Act I, and extrapolating from this one example it’s easy to infer the trend the rest of the play takes.
You know something is wrong when literary criticism seems like a hard science compared to what passes for climate science.
For example, I recently read a paper in the peer-reviewed climate literature that was cited as definitavely establishing the warning signal of CO2 in the atmosphere, using a spectrometer and done during summer and winter in Canada. A commenter at WUWT (Wattsupwiththat) said his problem was that CO2 was 10% or so in one season, but 30% in the other, which seemed a strange result. I noted that the really strange result was that they said their study established the greenhouse re-emission back toward the earth as 150 W/m^2 – in Canada!!! Since re-emission is a thermal/radiative effect, that means we could probably use solar cells to watch Jay Leno, as cells wouldn’t be putting out significantly less power at night than at high noon. Again, that was peer-reviewed research as approved by the CRU-rigged climate community.
I’ve been reading comments from physicists that are now shocked at the shoddy level of research in the climate journals (you could eat most in the field alive in a few months, just on their incompetence with methods, theory, and analaysis) to absolute outrage that the unethical actions of what’s been termed “the team” - that the wee band is ruining the reputation of all of science, since the public doesn’t really distinguish between one group of scientists and another. The AGW climate scientists, basically a cabal of non-photogenic meteorologist wannabees whose only chance to get laid is to impress hippy co-eds with their ecological bonafides, have used their claims to get government backing and funding, which they’ve used that as a cudgel against anyone, whether physicist, geologist, botanist, meteorologist, astrophysicist, or statistician, who threatens their little fiefdom.
My take on the e-mail situation, quite common judging from public comments in places like the Washington Post, is that if the data actually supported their case then they wouldn’t spend so much time committing fraud or violating the law to delete information subject to FOIA requests, kind of like asserting your innocence the day after your estranged ex-wife disappeared and you’ve been caught wiping down the inside of the trunk of your car with bleach: Nobody buys it.
As Hamlet said:
To cheat, or not to cheat, – that is the question: -
Whether ‘tis easier in science to create
The graphs and charts by manipulation,
and make fake warming from all too flat data,
So by amending trend it? – To lie, to cheat, -
What’s more, and by a cheat to say we use
A trick, aye, and the thousand clever tweaks
Our code is known for, – toward a conclusion
Devoutly to be wish’d. To lie, to cheat; -
To cheat, perchance to scheme: – ay, there’s the rub;
For from those peaking temps what schemes may come,
When we have shuffled all this data just
To serve a cause: Raise the prospect
That makes calamity of a long life,
For who would bear the higher temps in time,
The oppressive heat, the planet’s undoing?
Harangues our global gov: “this end – delay!”
Doth not the British Met office daily warn
This gradient cannot be sustained?
So what man would speak bare truths
When he himself might the planet save
With naked fibbing? Who would these taxes bear,
To grunt and sweat under onerous rates,
But that the dread of planetary death,
The predicted future, for whose doom
No taxpayer yearns, – will foot the bill,
And makes us rather feed the till this day
Than wait for the costs that we know naught of?
Thus the science does make patsies of us all;
And thus the native dose of common sense
Is shouted o’er with the pretense of science;
And many countries of great wealth and fortune
Will then collapse, their currencies awry,
And lose the name of nations. But e-mails
Our plot hath exposed! Now, in editorials
Be all our sins considered.
***
Well, it didn’t actually say that in the folios, but I applied a standard statistical model well accepted in the peer-reviewed Shakespeare literature to adjust for transcription errors, creating a more accurate and meaningful quote from the raw passage, which I unfortunately deleted when I moved from the halfway house to my double-wide because my trailer didn’t have enough room to store it. Nevertheless, it’s quite clear even in the small fragments of the raw play that are still available that Hamlet was a play about climate change, such as:
Claudius: How is it that the clouds still hang on you?
Hamlet: Not so my lord; I am too much i’ the sun
This exchange serves as a proxy for most of Act I, and extrapolating from this one example it’s easy to infer the trend the rest of the play takes.
You know something is wrong when literary criticism seems like a hard science compared to what passes for climate science.
For example, I recently read a paper in the peer-reviewed climate literature that was cited as definitavely establishing the warning signal of CO2 in the atmosphere, using a spectrometer and done during summer and winter in Canada. A commenter at WUWT (Wattsupwiththat) said his problem was that CO2 was 10% or so in one season, but 30% in the other, which seemed a strange result. I noted that the really strange result was that they said their study established the greenhouse re-emission back toward the earth as 150 W/m^2 – in Canada!!! Since re-emission is a thermal/radiative effect, that means we could probably use solar cells to watch Jay Leno, as cells wouldn’t be putting out significantly less power at night than at high noon. Again, that was peer-reviewed research as approved by the CRU-rigged climate community.
I’ve been reading comments from physicists that are now shocked at the shoddy level of research in the climate journals (you could eat most in the field alive in a few months, just on their incompetence with methods, theory, and analaysis) to absolute outrage that the unethical actions of what’s been termed “the team” - that the wee band is ruining the reputation of all of science, since the public doesn’t really distinguish between one group of scientists and another. The AGW climate scientists, basically a cabal of non-photogenic meteorologist wannabees whose only chance to get laid is to impress hippy co-eds with their ecological bonafides, have used their claims to get government backing and funding, which they’ve used that as a cudgel against anyone, whether physicist, geologist, botanist, meteorologist, astrophysicist, or statistician, who threatens their little fiefdom.
Hrm. Still no takers.
How about this BBC interview?
The press is becoming antagonistic to AGWers, including Dr. Waton.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzb8FljvGGI&feature=player_embedded[/yt]
As an aside, has everyone heard the joke about Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in the Egyptian desert? The Brits recently voted it the best joke.
How about this BBC interview?
The press is becoming antagonistic to AGWers, including Dr. Waton.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzb8FljvGGI&feature=player_embedded[/yt]
As an aside, has everyone heard the joke about Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in the Egyptian desert? The Brits recently voted it the best joke.
And yet all the propaganda doesn't change the fact that the ice caps are melting, glaciers are retreating, sea levels are rising and local ecologies are being disrupted as the average temperatures rise.
Yeah, and in real science change of rates matter too. The rate of ice loss is increasing over time. It's got this thing called a slope. Basic algebra, really.
Since you're not getting it, I'll explain a third time. It does not matter that there was an error in the IPCC report. It does not matter why that error was there. All that matters are what the actual facts are and the actual facts say that the Himalaya glaciers are retreating and that the rate that they are doing so is increasing. It doesn't matter if they're going to disappear in a timely fashion or not because that's not the important information it tells us. The important information is that for this to have happened, the climate must be changing. So once again, the details of when the ice will vanish is completely not the point. The fact that it is vanishing at an increasing rate is.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter if every single person who contributed to the IPCC report is a pathological liar. And it doesn't matter if everyone at CRU is a baby-eating political puppet master. What matters are the facts. And the facts speak for themselves. And it's a shame that people who are too engrossed in their politics don't want to listen. This entire escapade is nothing but a distraction run by people who find climate change to be politically inconvenient and so instead of addressing the science, they address the scientists as if tarnishing their reputation will change reality. But science, and reality, don't work that way.
And he also refuted that he had ever told the Daily Mail that it wasn't a mistake.
And yes, they say that pollutants like soot are accelerating the Himalayan glacier melt, but not that it's the sole cause.
Given the daily mail's reputation for poor quality journalism, it wouldn't suprise me that they published the so called admission when there wasn't one.
But we don't know that. We have only a very rough estimate of the basic rate, much less the acceleration. From the Indian Government comes this:
But AGW proponents are soooo good at plotting graphs in the absence of data.
You mistake the word "fact" for "something we just made up." That's why the IPCC report has been revealed as garbage. Nature just called for its overhaul, and the editor of Nature was just forced to resign from the panel investigating the CRU/EAU e-mail scandal because of his pro-AGW bias. In the internal review comments of the IPCC's AR4 report Dr. James Hansen's close colleague at NASA GISS, Dr. Andrew Lacis, said:
Ouch!
Well no.
Not only have we not reliably established the rate, we haven't reliably established the change in the rate (and in fact the rate has probably reversed in the past two years, making the change in the rate strongly negative - indicating a coming ice age. Woohoo!), and we haven't established the causes. NASA and other researchers are saying it's a combination of soot, desert dust, and slightly decreased monsoon precipitation. Perhaps the best way to reduce the soot is to have India switch to more modern petroleum based fuels.
Further, we know the glaciers should be retreating from their recent maximum reached during the Little Ice Age. In the longer term, very detailed studies of previous inter-glacial periods now indicate that the glaciers will surge forward in 2,000 to 2,500 years and wipe everyone out when the next ice age commences.
The problem with this whole thing is that the only way to actually resolve the question is for an unbiased team to gather entirely new data.....and yet, due to the politicization of the issue, finding an unbiased team is going to be next to impossible. At least, one with the requisite expertise.
Worse, no matter what results that team comes up with, someone will inevitably accuse them of falsifying them when they don't like the answer.
This is why politics and science really shouldn't mix.
Worse, no matter what results that team comes up with, someone will inevitably accuse them of falsifying them when they don't like the answer.
This is why politics and science really shouldn't mix.
Well, then, the Himalayan glaciers aren't retreating "abnormally" like everywhere else. They're retreating normally. That certainly disproves climate change.
I wonder what's hidden in that ellipsis.
Er... okay. So they don't contest Global Warming, they just say that their own personal glacier aren't melting as fast as other people's glaciers, and the report isn't endorsed by the Indian government's Ministry of Environment and Forests and is contradicted by satellite imagery.
That's compelling.
That's compelling.
But Al Gore is a happy, fat, SUV-drivin' rich man for it!
Again while we have the AGW-deniers jumping up and down of errors in the IPCC report which done mitigate the core facts such as the glaciers melting in the Himalayas, another example of how the denialist side works had come to light. Seems the like to quote as the former head of the IPCC as saying that the only way to get people's attention is to claim it as a disaster (paraphrased).
Pity Sir John Houghton never actually said or wrote at any time let along in 1994 as claimed. Seems that the claim actuall comes from a coloumn written by an Australian right-wing political columnist who attributed the quote but is unable to actually cite a reference. So in a nut shell what supposdely Houghton said in 1994 is really Piers Akerman writing in 2006.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2820429.htm
Pity Sir John Houghton never actually said or wrote at any time let along in 1994 as claimed. Seems that the claim actuall comes from a coloumn written by an Australian right-wing political columnist who attributed the quote but is unable to actually cite a reference. So in a nut shell what supposdely Houghton said in 1994 is really Piers Akerman writing in 2006.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2820429.htm
Well how about Phil Jones, who a day or two ago admitted to the BBC that recent warming wasn't exceptional, in either the rate or the magnitude, that there hasn't been any statistically significant warming in 15 years, that the IPCC models may overestimate climate sensitivity, and that the science isn't settled.
And at the recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union solar scientists said it is highly likely that the sun is exiting the Grand Maximum we've had for the past 50 years and entering a period like the Dalton Minimum, which will probably last until 2040, so we're heading back to the 1800's or the Pliocene. So the real worry about the Himalayan glaciers is that we evacuate everybody in the path of their advance!
And at the recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union solar scientists said it is highly likely that the sun is exiting the Grand Maximum we've had for the past 50 years and entering a period like the Dalton Minimum, which will probably last until 2040, so we're heading back to the 1800's or the Pliocene. So the real worry about the Himalayan glaciers is that we evacuate everybody in the path of their advance!