OT: Global Warming - Real or Contrived?

[RandyM]

Original Link:

http://calgarysun.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Ne ... 3-sun.html

I reproduced this article in full here because I think it is VERY worth reading, and illustrates nicely my vote of 'no confidence' in the global warming scaremongers and dissent stiflers:

------------------

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

-- Leo Tolstoy

(1826-1910)

Clearly, Tolstoy -- the great Russian novelist -- wasn't writing about man-made global warming, since he predated this relatively recent hysteria. Nevertheless, the quote certainly applies to the global warming debate -- or should I say the climate change consensus?

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summary released last Friday inflates the language of doom even as it deflates its predictions of temperature and sea level increases from previous reports.

The IPCC Climate Change 2007 report predicts world temperatures will possibly rise 1.8C to 4C (3.25 to 7.2F) from 1990 levels to the year 2100 and that sea levels might rise 28 to 43 cm (11 to 17 inches).

Just six years ago, however, the picture looked much bleaker.

The 2001 IPCC report predicted that from 1990 to 2100 temperatures would rise 1.4C to 5.8C causing sea levels to rise by .09 to .88 metres (3.5 to 34.6 inches or 9 to 88 cm).

In other words, in just six years, predictions about temperature increases have plummeted by one-third and predictions about sea-level increases at the high end have been cut in half!

At that rate, by my calculations, we'll just have to wait for two more reports and the IPCC will be predicting no measurable increases at all!

Incidentally, many climate scientists have been saying just that -- wait until 2025, when it's expected the sun's output may wane, leading to global cooling.

Another measurement has had to be slashed by one-third as well.

In 2001, the UN body said the global net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming with radiative forcing of 2.43 watts per square metre.

Oops. Now they're saying it's 1.6 watts per square metre.

Shouldn't someone at least be blushing? Shouldn't they apologize for getting all of this so wrong?

If a large automobile executive got his predictions wrong by up to 50%, he'd be fired. The IPCC, however, continues to fly around at great cost to the UN and the environment and they stay on board this great gig as long as they continue to tout the party line -- that Earth is going to hell, only it's going to be even hotter.

What's most troubling about all of this is the 21-page, much-hyped summary is not referenced at all.

The science that supposedly backs all of these predictions is nowhere to be found and won't be released until April and May.

This is problematic on many fronts, but as past IPCC reports have shown, the summary is not written by the scientists whose names appear on the cover, it's written by politicians and bureaucrats.

Indeed, some of those scientists after the fact have complained their work has been grossly misrepresented.

In 2001, two scientists complained publicly their work was misrepresented by those who wrote the summary, including MIT physicist Richard Lindzen.

In June 1996, Dr. Frederick Seitz, past-president of the National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of Rockefeller University, wrote with regard to the 1995 IPCC report: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."

He continued: "This report is not what it appears to be -- it is not the version approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page."

In other words, past IPCC reports have proven to be fraudulent and yet, to paraphrase Tolstoy, they have been woven into the public policy fabric of our lives.

[RandyM]

http://www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm

"Peer review is one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice", which is why Jared will undoubtedly leap to its defense as a scientist at a university. It's also why peer review is a club with which to beat global warming skeptics.

Those reading my posts will notice a distinct disdain for whatever comes out of peer review. My contention is that there is sufficient evidence of peer-review misbehavior, largely in favor of the predominant paradigm, so as to act as 'protectors of the consensus'... in other words, gatekeepers whose job it is to lock out people who disagree with orthodoxy, science or no science.

The closed and anonymous nature of peer review does nothing to enhance the public's view of peer-reviewed literature, and the recent revelations of shoddy science getting through peer review (perhaps because, as was implied earlier, we won't crucify the scientists involved because they got the answer 'correct').

Thanks to the uncensored nature of the Internet, it is impossible to keep secret the degree of corruption going on in the name of science, and more and more light is being shined on how we got to the point where a small group of people can claim a consensus and bully others into either accepting their viewpoints, or intimidating them into silence. In the last couple of months, the attempts at censorship, intimidation, removal of accreditation, marginalization and ridicule have really amped up. Even our President has been bullied into compliance.

Scientists everywhere should be rising up in arms over this, regardless of what they currently think about global warming, because these kinds of non-scientific tactics at silencing opposition might be working FOR them today, but may end up working AGAINST them tomorrow.

Randy

[wco81]

What I have is a life. Feel free to carry on without me.

In other words, you can't produce on your claim.

It would have taken less time to Google something like "politicization of global warming" than to post that weak alibi.

Nice try, but I'm still not that bored. What's weak are your attempts to goad me into a link posting pissing match. I'd rather read the more intelligent debate going on between Randy and Jared than to argue with someone as yourself, who seems to want to start an argument rather than have a civilized debate.

I'm not trying to goad you into anything. You made the claim first, which as it turns out you can't produce on. End of story.

Randy engaged in an intelligent debate?

[RandyM]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... eport.html

I actually laughed out loud while reading this piece...the irony is just blistering.

Note also the media's role in propagating it....

But wait, I'm just a conspiracy theorist

Randy

[matthewk]

I'm not trying to goad you into anything. You made the claim first, which as it turns out you can't produce on. End of story.

Randy engaged in an intelligent debate?

Can't and haven't are two different things.

[RandyM]

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd091606s.gif

Laughter is always the best medicine. Here's your "scientific method" for ya

Randy

[RobVarak]

On a lighter note:

Think globally act...er...locally?

http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2313.php

[seanmac31]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... eport.html

I actually laughed out loud while reading this piece...the irony is just blistering.

Note also the media's role in propagating it....

But wait, I'm just a conspiracy theorist

Randy

I actually laughed out loud when I went to the author's blog and read some of his older work on a variety of subjects. I know that being scientifically challenged is part of the deal when you have to carry the water for a site like RealClearPolitics (how shocking it was to see him writing a defense of intelligent design...wait a minute, no it wasn't), but he's actually just as dim-witted no matter his topic.

As credible sources of dissent go...

[RandyM]

Very good.

I'm glad you were able to go look at his other articles. I'm sure that was fun for you.

Meanwhile, back in reality -- just what in his latest analysis of that survey do you dispute?

I hate to ask you to inject, ya know...some substance...but just WHAT did he write in this piece that you think is wrong?

Randy

[Jared]

I reproduced this article in full here because I think it is VERY worth reading, and illustrates nicely my vote of 'no confidence' in the global warming scaremongers and dissent stiflers:

Randy...this article illustrates how people that don't understand what they're writing but have an agenda can spout stuff that is factually wrong in order to push said agenda. I've been sucked in again, mainly to correct what is (yet again) something that is factually wrong in one of your links/posts. Basically, the author of this piece didn't understand the numbers reported. The contents of the retort are from this rebuttal:

The IPCC Climate Change 2007 report predicts world temperatures will possibly rise 1.8C to 4C (3.25 to 7.2F) from 1990 levels to the year 2100 and that sea levels might rise 28 to 43 cm (11 to 17 inches).

Just six years ago, however, the picture looked much bleaker.

The 2001 IPCC report predicted that from 1990 to 2100 temperatures would rise 1.4C to 5.8C causing sea levels to rise by .09 to .88 metres (3.5 to 34.6 inches or 9 to 88 cm).

Basically, the .88 meter prediction is the high end number for the 2001 report, including all models plus land ice uncertainty. The .43 meter prediction is the mean (not high end number) from a specific prediction model (not all) in an earlier draft. If you want to compare apples to apples between the two drafts, the top-range level w/o ice uncertainty is .7 in the old SPM, and .59 in the new report. This would be a small increase in the high end prediction, not a decrease as claimed in the article. Furthermore, "For each scenario, the midpoint of the range in Table SPM-2 is within 10% of the TAR model average for 2090-2099."

Another measurement has had to be slashed by one-third as well.

In 2001, the UN body said the global net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming with radiative forcing of 2.43 watts per square metre.

Oops. Now they're saying it's 1.6 watts per square metre.

Shouldn't someone at least be blushing? Shouldn't they apologize for getting all of this so wrong?

I'll take directly from the post here, emphasis mine:

Interesting if true... but is it true? Oddly enough, no. The first he amplifies as the 2001 report showed that our greenhouse-gas emissions since 1750 had caused a "radiative forcing" of 2.43 watts per square metre. Our other effects on climate were shown as broadly self-cancelling. In the current draft, the UN has cut its estimate of our net effect on climate by more than a third, to 1.6 watts per square metre. Note the apples-and-oranges juxtaposition of 2.43 and 1.6. The correct value to compare to 2.43 is 1.66 (CO2) + 0.98 (other GHG) = 2.64. So the GHG forcing is assessed as larger not smaller which is unsurprising as we have another 6 years. *Net* anthro is 1.6 in AR4, but should be compared to... there isn't quite a comparable value from the TAR SPM. Sulphate is about -0.5 in both; land use about -0.2. In the AR4, most of the rest of the negative comes from aerosol indirect, as -0.7 (range -1.8 -0.3); whereas the TAR only gives a range (-2 to 0), but this is about the same as before. So the negatives are pretty well the same as before (though their certainty is now "low" rather than "very low"), the positives a bit bigger, Moncktons supposed reduction is nonsense.

By the way, Monckton's report is (I believe) the source for the numbers in your article. This guy may qualify as a hack. For example, he has previously claimed in an article on global warming that "there was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none." This claim is baseless, according to historians. Though maybe the historians are part of the global warming conspiracy as well. Folgers forever!!!

But seriously. Randy, I have no desire to debate you on this. I'm only responding to some of this stuff primarily because if I see something factually wrong about science, I feel compelled to correct it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of misconceptions about science in the general public (our nation's scientific literacy is poor overall), and I feel like I should correct them when I can.

Now again, I'm asking you to review what you've posted and, considering how much of it has been flat out wrong (recent examples, the numbers in this post, or pulling the claim that someone is getting fired for their views when that's not happening), think about it and maybe reevaluate your position. If most of what you're posting is either highly questionable or just flat out wrong, that may mean something.

I don't think you're just going to suddenly embrace current theories of anthropogenic global warming. But at least just take the time to vet your own sources BEFORE you post. Critically examine them. Don't just throw out things that primarily b/c they support your viewpoint without doing the work to see if they are supportable first.

(And an addendum...this time, I'm really not going to respond to any more of Randy's stuff on this topic, for reasons I've laid out previously in the thread.)

[RandyM]

"Counter wrote:"

Link?

Randy

[RandyM]

Jared,

Thank you for FINALLY posting something of substance. I'll post back after going through the sources.

Randy

[RandyM]

By the way, Monckton's report is (I believe) the source for the numbers in your article.

It might have been. The link I posted was not from Monckton. Did you actually go to the link?

[quote[But seriously. Randy, I have no desire to debate you on this. I'm only responding to some of this stuff primarily because if I see something factually wrong about science, I feel compelled to correct it. [/quote]

Or spin it.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of misconceptions about science in the general public (our nation's scientific literacy is poor overall), and I feel like I should correct them when I can.

We're soooo lucky to have you here for us scientifically illiterate types. Aren't you glad you studied hard, went to school, and didn't get stuck in Iraq? Sorry, Jared...but your condescension fails to impress me.

Now again, I'm asking you to review what you've posted and, considering how much of it has been flat out wrong (recent examples, the numbers in this post, or pulling the claim that someone is getting fired for their views when that's not happening),

You spun this. You didn't actually reply to it. The fact is, the guy was tol he was going to have his title yanked because he didn't agree with the state of Oregon's "official" position on global warming. Do you condone this approach to science?

think about it and maybe reevaluate your position. If most of what you're posting is either highly questionable or just flat out wrong, that may mean something.

It remains to be seen. I need to go and crunch the #'s on the IPCC report. I won't be surprised if your response is one possible spin on the numbers. Of course, you have yet to respond to the concerns of IPCC contributors who defected, who said that the science was corrupted, that the IPCC reps were going in front of the public with conclusions from studies that hadn't even been done yet (Landsea on Hurricanes etc). Yes, you remain VERY VERY quiet when it comes to IPCC-related science who have defected and spoke out against the corruption of science.

And then there is the gross double standard you CONTINUE to exhibit. You have nothing nasty to say about Mann for cooking the books statistically to get his hockey stick, but you are ready to rip a skeptic to shreds over the smallest inaccuracy. I think it is illuminating to everyone here which posts you choose to respond to, and which ones you don't. Sometimes silence speaks loudest.

I don't think you're just going to suddenly embrace current theories of anthropogenic global warming. But at least just take the time to vet your own sources BEFORE you post.

I will if you will (and you don't). You will take one link from me, go find a rebuttal, post it as the gospel truth, and stop there. You won't look at the rebuttal to the rebuttal, because you are uninterested in it at that point. Historically I have argued the M&M analysis of Mann's Hockey Stick. At that time you attacked M&M as hacks, non scientists etc, and posted link after link of Mann's defenders trying to discredit M&M. FINALLY, another impartial review of Mann's work was commissioned, totally destroyed Mann for poor statistical methodology, and you conveniently ignore that. As well, I've read that the Mann hockey stick his quietly disappeared from the IPCC literature. I haven't looked for myself (indeed the final draft isn't out yet, only the summary report), so I don't know for sure, but if true, where's the apology for that? Anyway, as I was saying, you defended Mann to the death, and still have nothing to say other than a very lame, "well, it doesn't matter because at least the answer was right". i.e. poor science from a global warming advocate can be excused because it conforms to the 'consensus', but poor science from a global warming skeptic means they are a hack.

Critically examine them. Don't just throw out things that primarily b/c they support your viewpoint without doing the work to see if they are supportable first.

Dude, you CONSTANTLY throw out anything that doesn't support anthropogenic global warming alarmism. You just dash off to RealClimate, get your rebuttal, and consider yourself victorious. They are not the last word, and one can easily spend hours going through the myriad responses for each one.

Just before I typed this, I looked at the 2001 IPCC and the numbers that were quoted indeed are in there. I am looking now in more detail at the graphs. But I will tell you my antennae goes up when you start talking about differences between drafts. I wonder which draft we are supposed to believe, particularly when the UN is going to be revising the SCIENTIFIC document to conform to the policymakers summary!

Randy

[RandyM]

Btw, Jared, why did you rely on Connolley to do your analysis? You're a scientist no? Shouldn't you have done your own homework on this and rebutted it rather than post a link by someone who did a rebuttal?

What is the advantage of being a scientist if you're just going to go link mining just like everyone else?

Randy

[RandyM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... n/Evidence

wow, quite a dust-up. WMC doesn't come off very well in it, though.

Randy

[RandyM]

Of course, by posting this 'dirt' about WMC I'm lowering myself to someone else's level. Sorry. I'll go back to my searches on the IPCC stuff.

[TheHiddenTrack]

This is a frustrating "thread." It's like listening to a creationist debate evolution.

[pk500]

This is a frustrating "thread." It's like listening to a creationist debate evolution.

More like a pissing match that should have went PM a page or two ago.

Take care,
PK

[webdanzer]

This is a frustrating "thread." It's like listening to a creationist debate evolution.

More like a pissing match that should have went PM a page or two ago.

Take care,
PK

Handhelds Forum, stat!

[XXXIV]

This is a frustrating "thread." It's like listening to a creationist debate evolution.

I prefer that one because Im pretty confident as to who has the evidence and who is just dreaming...With this one it seems like purely political picking and choosing of the facts I like for my side.

[Teal]

Randy...this article illustrates how people that don't understand what they're writing but have an agenda can spout stuff that is factually wrong in order to push said agenda.

I'm laughing at the irony of this statement, that's all. It's exactly what I and many others are thinking of the other side of the 'argument'...

Kinda like calling the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth'...that's priceless...

[Teal]

This is a frustrating "thread." It's like listening to a creationist debate evolution.

I prefer that one because Im pretty confident as to who has the evidence and who is just dreaming...

dear god, I'm afraid to even ask...

[Brando70]

This is a frustrating "thread." It's like listening to a creationist debate evolution.

More like a pissing match that should have went PM a page or two ago.

Take care,
PK

Handhelds Forum, stat!

LOL.

We should just settle this in Gears of War. Global warming believers vs. Global warming skeptics, a best-of-three with each game type. If the believers lose, they have to write a 1,000 word report on that junk science site without using the word "hack" or "fucktard." If the skeptics lose, they have to write 1,000 words on An Inconvenient Truth without using the words "shrill" or "Clinton's penis".

[webdanzer]

If the believers lose, they have to write a 1,000 word report on that junk science site without using the word "hack" or "fucktard." If the skeptics lose, they have to write 1,000 words on An Inconvenient Truth without using the words "shrill" or "Clinton's penis".

And if you happen to be on the fence, you can use "shrill fucktard hack clinton's penis" to write a brief bio on presidential candidate Hillary Clinton!

[webdanzer]

I also think we've just named RobV's next poker night thread:

"GoW -shrill fucktard hack clinton's penis- tonight!!! 2/8/07!!!"