Indian Government Marginalizes UN IPCC

[FrontLine]

LINK

In the article it recounts how it was stated at global climate talks in Pozan, Poland in 2008 how it was predicted that by 2020 crop yields in Africa could be reduced by 50% due to reduced rainfall due to global warming.

However the current head of the IPCC has now stated that there is no supporting data for that claim. The former head of the IPCC said that any like pronouncements should be based on hard data that is peer reviewed and that didn't happen.

As I said earlier, its the only planet we have and we should be good stewards of it. I also said that there is indeed legitimate skepticism being brought forth by the scientific community that climate change is caused by mankind and that the dire predictions may not be as dire as reality shows and that drastic changes that will negatively impact societies / nations should not be made based on discredited or suspect information. That a large body of the predictions are suspect are not the opinions of fringe whackos but the opinions by the very scientists and scientific community that once said we were all doomed.

 

[indranee]

Mmm... good for them, I guess. Regardless of what their own scientists/committee find out, we can be sure the Indian government isn't going to do jack about reducing pollution. They aren't going to do anything that might screw up their economy... neither is China.

yeah, we should know. 'cos the American gov't is doing heaps o'work!

 

[datagal]

In the meantime it just reminds us how some people can't don't know the difference between climate and weather.

Unless you cleverly run the headline

Report: Harsh winter a sign of climate change

Uh....yeah.

I agree RJ and Marc on this one.
And it wasn't that funny.

 

[Arrqh]

That a large body of the predictions are suspect are not the opinions of fringe whackos but the opinions by the very scientists and scientific community that once said we were all doomed.

One of the biggest problems is when people decide some of the details are "suspect" then they toss out the whole thing.

The Himalayas are the perfect example. Yes, some of the information in the IPCC report was not peer reviewed and was not accurate. But that's just the details... there is still peer reviewed data that shows that the glaciers are still retreating. Even casting it as "a large body" being suspect isn't accurate because there is more peer reviewed, scientifically accepted evidence for climate change then there are predictions that are not based on good data. The overall picture is clear and solid.

Ultimately this whole thing hasn't changed since the original email thing... this is a mudraking campaign designed to discredit climatologists by people who can't address most of the actual science.

 

[RJDiogenes]

LINK

In the article it recounts how it was stated at global climate talks in Pozan, Poland in 2008 how it was predicted that by 2020 crop yields in Africa could be reduced by 50% due to reduced rainfall due to global warming.

However the current head of the IPCC has now stated that there is no supporting data for that claim. The former head of the IPCC said that any like pronouncements should be based on hard data that is peer reviewed and that didn't happen.

As I said earlier, its the only planet we have and we should be good stewards of it. I also said that there is indeed legitimate skepticism being brought forth by the scientific community that climate change is caused by mankind and that the dire predictions may not be as dire as reality shows and that drastic changes that will negatively impact societies / nations should not be made based on discredited or suspect information. That a large body of the predictions are suspect are not the opinions of fringe whackos but the opinions by the very scientists and scientific community that once said we were all doomed.

It's not 2020 yet. In any case, predictions are predictions; many factors can influence what ultimately unfolds. The bottom line is that large-scale (primitive) industry is having a very negative impact on the environment. If we have a longer time until we reach a crisis point, that means we have longer to actually do something about it, not longer to procrastinate.

 

[Marc]

Intersting little piece. Lord Monckton is currently touring Australia at the moment and it's given rise to a few interesting points. Climate change sceptics frequently claim that media bias means they don't get any coverage yet this guy has been. Secondly for the all the cries about lack of peer review etc etc on their claims it's seems Monckton's not being challenged on some of his more dubious points.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2813459.htm

 

[Squiggy]

I'll remember that next time someone who hangs around left wing extremist sites posts in a thread about homosexuality.

You think people have to resort to using "left wing extremist sites" to support lifting Don't Ask, Don't Tell or gay marriage bans? Right, because that never gets any support in mainstream media sources.

Here's a "left wing extremist site"


Chairman's Corner Blog: My View on Don't Ask Don't Tell

By Adm. Mike Mullen
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Clearly he's a Marxist nogoodnik.

 

[gturner]

A professor of the philosophy of science at Oxford University wrote an essay on what went wrong with climate science.

 

[TheBrew]

A professor of the philosophy of science at Oxford University wrote an essay on what went wrong with climate science.

You didn't understand that, did you?

His point was not about climate science. He was making the argument that when some of the data is manipulated, it hurts the credibility of all of the data (and science in general). Just because 5% of the data is bad, does not mean to ignore the other 95%.

 

[gturner]

A professor of the philosophy of science at Oxford University wrote an essay on what went wrong with climate science.

You didn't understand that, did you?

His point was not about climate science. He was making the argument that when some of the data is manipulated, it hurts the credibility of all of the data (and science in general). Just because 5% of the data is bad, does not mean to ignore the other 95%.

Yes, I did understand it. Perhaps you should read it.

As an aside, it's not that 5% of the data is bad, it's that the entire surface temperature record is so compromised that it's almost useless. Even the British MET office said they'd have to completely re-analyze the surface temperatures and they project it will take until 2013 before they have it fixed.

The rest of the real science is largely based on the flawed data, and the rest of the IPCC is largely based on either bad science or blurbs from advocacy groups.

The point of his essay was explaining how science could end up so totally compromised. As one commenter summed up the essay, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

[TheBrew]

The article was about the Philosophy of Science, not Science itself. I can sum it up in three words "Scientists Are Human." It does nothing to discredit the building actual data on man's effect on Climate Change.

 

[Davros]

The drive behind man-mad global warming is $$$. Plain and simple.

No, the drive behind man made global warming is reality.

 

[Balrog]

^^ Since scientists are indeed human, it does much to question the data collected by those scientists as it pertains to climate change. Until the data is properly obtained and reanalyzed, the proper course seems to be wait and see.

Or, in the case of the Indian Govt., set up their own study on man-made global climate change. My opinion has always been more and more evidence collected by multiple, independent sources is better than just taking information from one or a small group. Keeps everybody honest.

 

[gturner]

The article was about the Philosophy of Science, not Science itself. I can sum it up in three words "Scientists Are Human." It does nothing to discredit the building actual data on man's effect on Climate Change.

Um, that's exactly what it discredits, giving the philosophical underpinnings as to why scientists ended up as advocates, undermining their own science and getting caught.

As he said in the essay:

Even now, the catalogue of unscientific practices revealed in the mainstream media is very small in comparison to what is available on the blogosphere. Details of shoddy science and dirty tricks abound. By the end, the committed inner core were confessing to each other that global temperatures were falling, but it was far too late to change course. The final stage of corruption, cover-up, had taken hold.

Perhaps you read that to mean that the unscientific practices were small in comparison to the body of climate science. That's not what he said. He said the unscientific practices revealed in the media is small in comparison with the unscientific practices already exposed on the Internet and not yet reported in the media.

He goes on to say:

The combination of non-critical ‘normal science’ with anti-critical ‘evangelical science’ was lethal. As in other ‘gate’ scandals, one incident served to pull a thread on a tissue of protective plausibilities and concealments, and eventually led to an unravelling. What was in the e-mails could be largely explained in terms of embattled scientists fighting off malicious interference; but the materials ready and waiting on the blogosphere provided a background, and that is what converted a very minor scandal to a catastrophe.

Consideration of those protective plausibilities can help to explain how the illusions could persist for so long until their sudden collapse. The scientists were all reputable, they published in leading peer-reviewed journals, and their case was itself highly plausible and worthy in a general way. Individual criticisms were, for the public and perhaps even for the broader scientific community, kept isolated and hence muffled and lacking in systematic significance. And who could have imagined that at its core so much of the science was unsound? The plausibility of the whole exercise was, as it were, bootstrapped.

The 'bootstrapping of plausibility' refers to the "pal review" and the determined effort to present a consensus (as if consensus makes truth) and the claims that 'the science is settled.' None of it was true and the real uncertainties of each part of the case were glossed over or completely ignored, even edited out of the IPCC report. Instead of science they were blinded by their own advocacy and bias, the entire group holding hands as they walked off a cliff.

This is a common enough behavior when strong beliefs and belief in a cause overcomes skepticism. How do you think major religions function? Do you think that everyone in the Vatican or Mecca is actually correct, scientifically and historically correct, about their worldview? Or has a large group convinced itself of something because they reinforce each other's beliefs, building certainty where none is warranted by silencing or ignoring critics, dismissing detractors as tools of the devil (or corporations), etc?

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

Regardless, I think it is desirable that the world does its best to move away from Fossil fuels and on to renewable energy sources. Its the only planet we have and we should be good stewards of it. However to take action based on faulty information is the wrong step to take. To take action that causes more harm than good is the wrong step to take.

Problem is that is that (reports aside) is that much of the resistance to green energy etc is coming from those who stand to lose the most from a move to green energy namely oil and coal producers.

If you look at the money that gets pumped into the yes/no sides for the AGW argument much of the no money is coming from the oil companines, mining companies and lobby groups like the Petroluem Institute. According the to figures quote in a place that shall not be named and I think in scitech the no side is being funded at a rate of something like 14:1.

And if they get their way these planet is fucked and they crap on now about the costs of counting climate change, well that cost is nothing compared the cost we'll face down the track when oil goes ballistic as it starts to run out the impact it will have.

Why should this be that relevant? Where would you expect opposition to a proposition to come from if not the people who are being most targeted? This is a fallacious line of reasoning that has always bothered me, but pops up quite a bit in the global warming debate. Every side of a debate has an interest at stake that they are promoting. Saying that one side should be completely discounted for that is like saying that everything a defense lawyer says in a trial should be discounted because he is working for the defendant and is just trying to get him off.

 

[Marc]

Regardless, I think it is desirable that the world does its best to move away from Fossil fuels and on to renewable energy sources. Its the only planet we have and we should be good stewards of it. However to take action based on faulty information is the wrong step to take. To take action that causes more harm than good is the wrong step to take.

Problem is that is that (reports aside) is that much of the resistance to green energy etc is coming from those who stand to lose the most from a move to green energy namely oil and coal producers.

If you look at the money that gets pumped into the yes/no sides for the AGW argument much of the no money is coming from the oil companines, mining companies and lobby groups like the Petroluem Institute. According the to figures quote in a place that shall not be named and I think in scitech the no side is being funded at a rate of something like 14:1.

And if they get their way these planet is fucked and they crap on now about the costs of counting climate change, well that cost is nothing compared the cost we'll face down the track when oil goes ballistic as it starts to run out the impact it will have.

Why should this be that relevant? Where would you expect opposition to a proposition to come from if not the people who are being most targeted? This is a fallacious line of reasoning that has always bothered me, but pops up quite a bit in the global warming debate. Every side of a debate has an interest at stake that they are promoting. Saying that one side should be completely discounted for that is like saying that everything a defense lawyer says in a trial should be discounted because he is working for the defendant and is just trying to get him off.

and you completely miss the point.

Scientists working on AGW science had been accused of profitting from it with claims that grant money is going directly in their pocket (when that's not the case).

Yet the same people who make these accusations ignore the vast amounts of money going to the anti-AGW side and never accuse those proponets of benefiting financially.

 

[gturner]

Aside from all the power and prestige the AGW team have gained (along with money, such as a couple million dollars from the Himalayan glacier flap), or the billions in climate spending that they get to in large part direct or influence, your argument is a red-herring chasing its own tail.

Where all the people who believed the Earth was flat profiting from it? No. Were they right? No.

Did all the people who believed in Nazism, Fascism, or Communism profit from it? All tens of millions of them? No. Were they right? No.

Do all the people who believe in whatever religion profit from it? No. Are they right? Probably not. But why do they evangelize so? Could a person be motivated by other things than money?

To believe that one's opinion, one's beliefs about a subject, must win out in debate or all life on Earth will die is a bigger bias and a more powerful motivator than money, religion, communism, fascism, Nazism, capitalism, or almost any other 'ism'.

Once a handful of scientists became possessed of this demon they found legions of ready followers in the environmental movement. The importance of the belief itself requires detractors to be silenced or marginalized. These scientists are, after all, the chosen ones who are mankind's last hope for survival. So they demonize their opponents, science goes out the window, and we have a new religion where scientists at every step in the chain of data fudge it a little bit.

For example, the NOAA archives (the historical climate data that all three global temperature measures are taken from) took a turn for the worse in the 1980's. The number of monitored stations was drastically reduced. But those reductions weren't random. Remote, pristine stations were far more likely to be excluded. Stations at higher elevations or further from the equator were more likely to be excluded. The result was a warming bias. Then they started shifting to automated recording stations, usually located near airports, introducing another post-1980's warming bias (airport heat island). Airport stations only have to be accurate to plus or minus 0.9 degrees F, introducing error. But any airport temperature had best err to the warm side for liability reasons because it's used to compute density altitude which is critical for aircraft performance, such as landing speed and required runway length for a takeoff.

But from this marginalized and compromised raw data, already biased towards warmth, data was further massaged to make a warming trend appear. When all the fudging was done NOAA and others started adjusted earlier 20th century records to 'compensate' for error. Examination of these adjustments is producing a continual stream of new scandals about the data set used by CRU, NASA GISS, and everyone else.

NOAA keeps updating old temperature records without posting any notice that the new version of the data is any different from the old version of the data, and bloggers only catch it because when the redownload a data set they've been feeding through their computers for analysis, the numbers all changed - and always to create a more positive slope to the temperature record. When pressed, NASA had to confess that they no longer had any of the earlier data sets.

This adjusted "raw" data is then used by GISS and CRU and the likes who further manipulate it, and when pressed they claimed they'd thrown away all the original data - "the dog ate my homework" defense.

So at this point so many people at so many levels have each nudged the data a little bit before passing it on up the chain (to make mankind's required course of action a little more obvious) that we really don't have a good idea what's been going on with temperature.

This winter we've had record cold and snow, unless you ask NASA, NOAA, or CRU, in which case we've set records for the warmest winter on record.

 

[T'Girl]

Why do people say that weather and climate are completely disconnected? Isn't weather a manifestation of climate?

 

[Jadzia]

I tend to think of the difference as time scales. Climate is around for long enough to drive changes in nature; weather is something temporary that nature is generally tolerant of.

For example: an infrequent snowfall doesn't make sparrows extinct. An infrequent storm doesn't kill a forest. A week of hot sunshine doesn't turn my land into a desert.

But if sustained over a long time at a much increased frequency, some of these changes would be inevitable... and that would be climate.