Anthropogenic Global Warming is Bunk Science

[RainmanTime]

Hi Darby,

Thanks for posting the Coleman information.

As I am sure you suspect...it gets better. The AGW house is truly crumbling right now. Too bad the new administration is ignoring the writing on the wall and pressing forward with its bad-science-based agenda. And they bashed Bush for ignoring reality? It is to laugh.

So here is the latest person to step forward and call BS on AGW:

Forecasting Guru Announces: "No scientific basis for forecasting climate"

<font color="red"> Today yet another scientist has come forward with a press release saying that not only did their audit of IPCC forecasting procedures and found that they "violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting", but that "The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose." This organization should know, they certify forecasters for many disciplines and in conjunction with John Hopkins University if Washington, DC, offer a Certificate of Forecasting Practice. [/COLOR]

No doubt the AGW zealots will put this on heavy "ignore and do not address"...

<font color="red"> What these two authorities, Drs Theon and Armstrong, are independently and explicitly stating is that the computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions concerned with global warming, including Australia's CSIRO, are fundamentally flawed.

In today's statement, made with economist Kesten Green, Dr Armstrong provides the following eight reasons as to why the current IPCC computer models lack a scientific basis:

1. No scientific forecasts of the changes in the Earth's climate.
2. Improper peer review process.
3. Complexity and uncertainty of climate render expert opinions invalid for forecasting.
4. Forecasts are needed for the effects of climate change.
5. Forecasts are needed of the costs and benefits of alternative actions that might be taken to combat climate change.
7. The climate system is stable.
8. Be conservative and avoid the precautionary principle.
[/COLOR]

Number 7 is my favorite from a technical standpoint, since it deals with feedback loops. Something I work with day in and day out...and something that many "climatologists" can only barely do the LaPlace math for...

<font color="red"> To assess stability, we examined the errors from naïve forecasts for up to 100 years into the future. Using the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre's data, we started with 1850 and used that year's average temperature as our forecast for the next 100 years. We then calculated the errors for each forecast horizon from 1 to 100. We repeated the process using the average temperature in 1851 as our naïve forecast for the next 100 years, and so on. This "successive updating" continued until year 2006, when we forecasted a single year ahead. This provided 157 one-year-ahead forecasts, 156 two-year-ahead and so on to 58 100-year-ahead forecasts.

We then examined how many forecasts were further than 0.5°C from the observed value. Fewer than 13% of forecasts of up to 65-years-ahead had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. For longer horizons, fewer than 33% had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. Given the remarkable stability of global mean temperature, it is unlikely that there would be any practical benefits from a forecasting method that provided more accurate forecasts.[/COLOR]

The process they describe here provides hard-to-refute evidence that there are stabilizing (negative feedback) loops built-in to the climate system. Dr. Roy Spencer has written about this at length, and points out that the IPCC climate models (all of them) consistently model cloud effects as a positive (destabilizing) feedback gain. If this were true, the world would have gone divergent long before man showed up because of all the CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by volcanos.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

And speaking of volcanos...

I just mentioned the effect of volcanos. With Mount Redoubt in Alaska ready to blow its top, it is time to review some correlating data that shows what happens when two sets of events align: (1) When solar radiance plummets and (2) Volcanoes around the world begin to become active again. This chart says it all:

Hard to ignore these trends, which stretch back in TIME quite a bit. So we just came out of a year with VERY LOW solar radiance (as evidenced by the low number of days with sunspots). And all one needs to do are a few googles on volcanic activity, or the threats thereof, around the globe... and using this past data we can understand why some scientists (not the AGW crowd) are saying we are entering a new, drastic cooling trend.

RMT

 

[daydreamercutie7]

Re: And speaking of volcanos...

ooh yea huh..it was featured on yahoo... saw it a few hrs ago..didnt read it, tho..

 

[Doghead]

Re: And speaking of volcanos...

Before I begin- I am a triple graduate- Law, Arts, Science.

AGW should be called what it is:

Nazi science.

It is EXACTLY the same blend of politics, corporatism (don't think carbon trading is for the little guy- it's not), anti-humanism and ecology movement twaddle that gave birth to Nazism.

Back then there was the ecology movement, which sprang from the pan-germanism and pagan revival of the turn of the twentieth century which was manured by World War 1 and blossomed afterwards. AGW masquerades as science, but it has all the cult overtones of classic Nazi (ie bad) science. At the heart of AGW is a hatred of humanity, hatred of technical achievement, and a desire to tear them down. It is also extremely telling to me that the AGW proponents always rely on simplistic sloganeering and dumbed down argument -another Nazi hallmark- and that the voice of reason, which in such a complex area must be technical and detailed, is therefore greatly disadvantaged.

There could be no worse collection of people to entrust anything to, let alone the future of civilisation, than the parasitic ne'er-do-wells of the tenured academic scientist, the politician, the journalist and the tycoon.

This same matrix of manipulation has given us

political correctness
- a movement more intolerant than any prejudice it claims to correct, more racist than the old deep South with its ruthless hatred of white males

the new paganism
- a scientistic rather than scientific attempt to pasteurise and homogenise faith, and with it destroy all cultures not spawned in savage tribes, street gangs or wrong-headed fundamentalist dogma

outsourcing our critical thinking to the mainstream media
- the least thoughtful and accurate group of public identities on the planet now convey our "facts" to us, and no scientist wishing to prosper can fail to learn how to market themselves- to the guaranteed detriment of science

the death of the nation state
- it was too health to die a natural death as desired so they flat out killed it

the death of individuality
- no longer is pluralism and Jeffersonian free thought even tolerated, let alone encouraged

conspiratorial government
- when the architects of fear are allowed to use negative reinforcement based control mechanisms on humanity, we have government by the pedophiles (eg unconvicted co-conspirator in the Franklin case BARNEY FRANK), for the pedophiles


THEY LIVE, WE SLEEP has unfortunately proven to be a prophetic film. As has THE ARRIVAL. It's just that the "aliens" are a segment of our own species wallowing in sociopathic behaviour, most of which deviously wears a mask of concern for the "cattle" they see us as.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: And speaking of volcanos...

Nice post Doghead. I, for one, am glad you returned to the site. Your candor and straightforward demeanor are refreshing.

AGW should be called what it is:

Nazi science.

I am not as willing to be so blunt as you in calling it what it is. But that is my own shortcoming. I still have further to travel down my personal road.

But yes, I do know that the covert intentions behind AGW (just one tool in their bag) are as you say. It is clear that evil intentions will always use and promote what seem like virtuous goals to achieve their less than virtuous intentions. Their achilles heal is their hypocrisy. Pay attention not to what Al Gore says and how he tells others they should live their lives. Rather, pay attention to what he does and how he lives his life. That is truth, and it shall enlighten those who think AGW is real to his underlying intentions. "By their actions shall ye know them."

I am a man of science. While I can usually ignore the playing of politics to control people, where I cannot accept it is in using lies and co-opting science to achieve these ends. That is why I shout about the BS that is AGW. On another website, I have a single thread where I have collected and will continue to post the evidence that falsifies the bad science behind AGW (and let me again restate, the lie is that mankind is the primary force behind warming...not that warming was not occurring).

May your path remain lighted by your conscience, your search for truth, and the unveiling of lies.

RMT

 

[Doghead]

Re: And speaking of volcanos...

AGW is one of an apparently infinite number of things which have led my wife to ban me from watching the "news" whilst she is home.

"no more coffee for YOU, Doghead..."

 

[Einstein2087]

Re: And speaking of volcanos...

I guess there is a lesson to be learned here:

When dealing with a politically touchy subject, even the most scientific minded people tend to lose it.

Not being an American, I had no idea global warming was such a problematic issue in the USA. Those last posts of RMT and Darby simply leave me speechless. Talk about bunk science... sheesh.

It's a real shame that this thread has come to this. And on the "real science" board - no less. Pity.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: And speaking of volcanos...

When dealing with a politically touchy subject, even the most scientific minded people tend to lose it.

If you would, please, could you define "lose it"?

Not being an American, I had no idea global warming was such a problematic issue in the USA.

Have you paid attention to the whole "carbon credits" scheme in Europe? The reason AGW is a problem is because many see it as a co-opting of science (which is what it is, sorry you refuse to see the evidence that falsifies it) as a means of socialist control over people.

Those last posts of RMT and Darby simply leave me speechless. Talk about bunk science... sheesh.

Perhaps if you were to educate yourself about financial issues, and contrast them to how we do things in science, you may begin to see the problem we are headed for.... and the financial incentive for the people pushing AGW (Al Gore). I suggest you read this paper:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/corrupt_currency.pdf

And allow me to quote from part of it that addresses the "science" of AGW (which is what they are using to push the carbon credits scheme as a fiat currency)...

<font color="red"> But the question remains unanswered: “What’s the evidence that man-made CO2
makes much difference to our climate?” So far no one can answer it without using
the words ‘IPCC’, ‘consensus’, ‘mainstream’, ‘expert’, or ‘computer model’.

Dr. David Evans pointed out the lack of evidence in The Australian on July 18,
2008 (see Appendix II). Despite the widespread coverage of this article, to date no
one has refuted it by providing empirical evidence. Replies fall into four categories.

1. “The IPCC says so, and there is mainstream consensus.” — There is no
consensus, it wouldn’t prove anything if there was, and the IPCC is a UN
committee that was set up to find evidence of anthropogenic greenhouse
warming.
2. Computer Models — Models are made of assumptions built on estimations,
amplified by conjecture. They are a series of calculations and thus theory, not
evidence.
3. Laboratory Theory — Test tube experiments don’t match real world
measurements. The “greenhouse effect” has almost no effect in a real
greenhouse (the warming is almost entirely due to convection), which
undermines the idea that greenhouse gases have much effect in the real
atmosphere.
4. Irrelevant Evidence — Proof of global warming is not proof that CO2 is the
cause. Icebergs would melt even if a team of UFOs were heating the planet
with ray guns. [/COLOR]

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: And speaking of volcanos...

And let me also quote the salient points put forth by Dr. David Evans in his article included as Appendix II. First, his lead-in:

<font color="red"> I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian
Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting
model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in
the land use change and forestry sector [/COLOR]

The reason this is significant is because he was a scientist who was convinced of the evidence of man-made CO2 causing global warming... but now, as a good scientist should do, he changes his opinions based on the facts in hand at the time. Now let us see how he points out the facts and the data that support them:

<font color="red"> There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of
the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for
years, and cannot find it.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant
global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has
occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures
(though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone
that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global
warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming
trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the
past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are
corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on
thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to
vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature
data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based
data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three
global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or
satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a
million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the
accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important
about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them,
though they would dispute their relevance. [/COLOR]

And with what contrarial data doe the "alarmist scientists" dispute the relevance? None that I can see. Please pay particular note of #4. I can show you other graphs of the same ice core data that shows CO2 is the lagging effect, and that the temp changes preceded the CO2 rise. That is what we call falsifying evidence. If you still choose to ignore this, then I am not sure there is much hope for your adherence to science.

What is most important is that this is not you or me debating whose science is "better". Rather, this is a scientist who was orignally convinced of the trace data...but now after more data has come in has rightfully stepped forward to tell others of how this new data falsifies the old theories. This is someone who should be paid attention to, for it is clear he responds to data, not political trends and taskmasters.

RMT

 

[Angleochoas]

Re: And speaking of volcanos...

RMT,

Here's one in your area of expertise...

Since we've been sending rockets/shuttles (anything to escape earth's gravity pull) to space...
is there an effect on the spin of the axis's from the thrust push over time?

 

[Doghead]

Re: And speaking of volcanos...

wow, off-topic much? Global warming doomsday cults will put us literally into a dark age... so I can guarantee you, since there won't be any more rocketry being done, at least in the civilised world, you can cease worrying about that.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: And speaking of volcanos...

Angelochoas:

Since we've been sending rockets/shuttles (anything to escape earth's gravity pull) to space...
is there an effect on the spin of the axis's from the thrust push over time?

Question: What axis are you asking about? The axis of the rocket or the axis of the earth? It is not clear to me. If you mean the spin of the earth on its axis, the answer is any effect that a rocket's thrust would have on the spin of the earth is infinitesmally small (and not additive from one launch to another). And it would only come from thrust misalignment. Because this force only acts upon the earth for a very brief time... the time it takes for the rocket plume to cease to impinge upon the earth. After that time it is only pushing against the atmosphere (like any jet engine does). Moreover, during this time that it is impinging upon the earth, ideally you would like it to be acting directly perpendicular to the surface of the earth (and thus through the CG of the earth). Hence, that would produce no net torque on the earth, and thus would not induce a change in the earth's spin.

But this is off topic from this thread, as Doghead has pointed out. If you want to discuss this further, could you start another thread?

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: And speaking of volcanos...

Einstein2087:

Here is a report on that ice core data I was telling you about in the last few posts. I would appreciate you owning-up that this casts serious doubt on the AGW claims put forth. If you can not own-up to this, then I expect you can refute this data with data that carries more weight that these direct observations.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php

<font color="red"> For the past two decades or more, we have heard much about the global warming of the 20th century being caused by the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration that is generally attributed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This story, however, has always been controversial [see Smagorinsky et al. (1982) and Idso (1982) for early pro/con positions on the issue]; and with the retrieval and preliminary analysis of the first long ice core from Vostok, Antarctica -- which provided a 150,000-year history of both surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration -- the debate became even more intense, as the close associations of the ups and downs of atmospheric CO2 and temperature that were evident during glacial terminations and inceptions in that record, as well as in subsequent records of even greater length, led many climate alarmists to claim that those observations actually proved that anthropogenic CO2 emissions were responsible for 20th-century global warming.

This contention was challenged by Idso (1989), who wrote -- in reference to the very data that were used to support the claim -- that "changes in atmospheric CO2 content never precede changes in air temperature, when going from glacial to interglacial conditions; and when going from interglacial to glacial conditions, the change in CO2 concentration actually lags the change in air temperature (Genthon et al., 1987)." Hence, he concluded that "changes in CO2 concentration cannot be claimed to be the cause of changes in air temperature, for the appropriate sequence of events (temperature change following CO2 change) is not only never present, it is actually violated in [at least] half of the record (Idso, 1988)." [/COLOR]

That is science, with all the references you need to check it out. Let's see what else the data are saying about CO2 as the driver for global warming:

<font color="red"> Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years"

snip

On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years. [/COLOR]

That is a lot of falsifying data... I presume you understand that since the CO2 rise lags the temperature rise, that this means it is the effect, and not the cause of the temperature rise? Finally:

<font color="red"> This finding, in the words of Caillon et al., "confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation." Nevertheless, they and many others continue to hold to the view that the subsequent increase in atmospheric CO2 -- which is believed to be due to warming-induced CO2 outgassing from the world's oceans -- serves to amplify the warming that is caused by whatever prompts the temperature to rise in the first place. This belief, however, is founded on unproven assumptions about the strength of CO2-induced warming and is applied without any regard for biologically-induced negative climate feedbacks that may occur in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Also, there is no way to objectively determine the strength of the proposed amplification from the ice core data. [/COLOR]

This smacks of bad science all around: They admit that their data confirms that CO2 is not forcing the temperature rises that cause deglaciation...and yet even though they admit this, they still cling to their theory but cannot show objective evidence to support it. But I have to give them credit, because right now all the AGW "true believers" are totally ignoring this data and not even trying to explain it away. Ignoring data that falsifies your belief is the definition of confirmation bias.

Will you continue to deny this and do you still claim AGW is based on "sound science"?
RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

The Definitive Timeline of AGW Scam

I have not updated this thread since the ClimateGate emails broke in mid-November 2009.

If anyone out there still actually believes Anthropogenic Global Warming "science is settled", instead of it being nothing more than a corruption of science for political objectives on a literally GLOBAL scale, then the following timeline (in PDF) should convince you of just what has been going on. It is a fantastic piece of work, and hard to argue with the facts it presents.

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/climategate/history/2009.12.23_climategate_30_years_in_the_making_banner.pdf

And I will make a prediction right now (and I again admit I am NOT a time traveler):

If Barack Obama continues to blindly act as the mouthpiece and political actor for Al Gore and his corruption of science for his own political power grab, then there is absolutely no way he will be elected to a second term.

This story is just "warming up" if you pardon the pun. I am quite sure there is going to be a lot more dog doo-doo coming out and hitting the proverbial fan. People are going down.

RMT

 

[Twighlight]

Re: The Definitive Timeline of AGW Scam

I think it's quite right to be sceptical of the global warming 'evidence'. We are, sometimes quite dogmatically, being presented with 'science' that in some cases is nothing of the sort.

The KEY issue for me is.......global warming compared with what ? Even a cursory glance at climate records of the past shows huge variation.

What I dislike most about the whole global warming bandwaggon is this notion that there's somehow some 'pristine' garden of Eden type 'just right' condition for the Earth....and we are wrecking it. Never mind that 10,000 years ago.....half of Europe and the US was under a mile of ice. Sea levels rose 400 feet after the last ice age, compared with which a rise of 2 feet is pathetic.

The trouble is that the whole Gaia lobby has gotten on board the climate bandwaggon too. Poor old 'Mother Earth' is straining under the load of us intelligent apes. Never mind that nature itself has half a dozen times produce events that wiped out 90% of all life. Never mind that there was 1/3 more CO2 150 milion years ago and there were virtually no polar ice caps at all. Never mind all the vast evidence that shows HUGE natural changes without a single intelligent ape even on the planet.

I would expect CO2 to have a warming effect. That much is really not in dispute. But the extent of it is impossible to verify unless one knows what the underlying trend would otherwise be. If mankind is responsible for 'global warming'.....then who was responsible for the Little Ice Age, where temperatures were dramatically lower than today. And howcome the Little Ice Age corresponds remarkably well with the Maunder Minimum of sunspot activity ?

I think it's absolutely criminal that scientists attempting to show a link with solar activity have been marginalised..........specifically by those with vested interests in the whole CO2 reduction business. 10 years ago....any notion that solar activity might affect the climate drastically was widely dismissed, largely because nobody knew what the mechanism might be.

We're not talking about the sun getting hotter or colder, but changes to solar wind. Only recently, in the past few years, has it been shown that solar wind and the Sun's magnetic field CAN affect the climate considerably. There is a direct link to cosmic rays...which somehow seem to be involved in the generation of clouds. When the sun is more active fewer cosmic rays get through.....and cloud generation in the atmosphere is reduced.

Well, now that it is admitted that the Sun DOES have an impact, the CO2 bandwaggon now try to argue the effect is minimal. But, once again, the data is accumulating that this is not true, and that the impact may be considerable.

This is a variable that simply has not been taken into account AT ALL in climate models of the CO2 advocates. But.....one may find that changes, as the Sun's recent exceptionally low activity has corresponded exactly with the failure of temperatures to rise in the past decade, that Rainman illustrates.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: The Definitive Timeline of AGW Scam

We are, sometimes quite dogmatically, being presented with 'science' that in some cases is nothing of the sort.

The scientific method is very clear on such attempts to force a belief when falsifying evidence exists. Once evidence is identified that falsifies ANY prediction of a given theory, that theory can no longer be considered scientific truth. Simple as that. And there is certainly more than one bit of evidence that falsifies the AGW theory, with the strongest being the defacto temperature records of the past 10 years. All by themselves, these data falsify the global temperature predictions made in 1998 by "The Team". Hence, their theory is no longer considered even viable by the scientific method. Of course, because The Team are nothing more than religious zealots in this regard (certainly they are not acting like scientists), they will simply never admit that their theory is no longer considered viable science.

What I dislike most about the whole global warming bandwaggon is this notion that there's somehow some 'pristine' garden of Eden type 'just right' condition for the Earth....and we are wrecking it. Never mind that 10,000 years ago.....half of Europe and the US was under a mile of ice.

You are being too kind, Twighlight. The evidence is much worse than even this! The ice core records show us that ice ages are the norm, not the climate we have lived in since around 10,000 BC. Here:

When you look at the temperature anomaly on this timescale, it is clear that the climate spends much more time in a very cold state (below -2 Deg. C temperature anomaly) than it does in a human-friendly warm state. This data makes it abundantly clear that it is NOT warming we have to worry about, but the opposite. Whether or not mankind can muster enough thermodynamic power to affect the natural thermodynamic system of the earth is a whole different question with an answer equally disturbing to those who think we can control the climate.

I think it's absolutely criminal that scientists attempting to show a link with solar activity have been marginalised..........

As we are seeing as Climategate pulls back the curtain on the activities of the AGW high priests (alleged scientists), there has been quite a bit of criminal activity going on. They are guilty of extreme fraud.

Well, now that it is admitted that the Sun DOES have an impact, the CO2 bandwaggon now try to argue the effect is minimal. But, once again, the data is accumulating that this is not true, and that the impact may be considerable.

Yes. This is yet another angle of the AGW hoax that is being falsified. By my reading, their theory is already in tatters. But they are too "religious" in their zeal to admit it, and their political handlers are ignoring every bit of evidence that shows the king has no clothes.

Many of us now see that the day of reckoning has arrived for these crooks who have abused science for political reasons. It is time for those of us who know and apply the scientific method to partake in the doling out of justice to these criminals.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: The Definitive Timeline of AGW Scam

Here we see yet MORE evidence that the "peer reviewed science" being force-fed to us by a bunch of UN bureaucrats (IPCC) is neither, necessarily, peer-reviewed nor science for that matter!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

<font color="red"> "A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi." [/COLOR]

Read the entire article, and if you STILL have an overt tendency to believe the IPCC and its AGW Alarmist agenda is reality, then you had best just go ahead and join the Democratic Party and live in a fantasy world with the rest of your ilk. :D

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

House of Cards Coming Crashing Down!

The doo-doo is really hitting the fan now!

If you think one little false-fact about glaciers (that was not from a peer-reviewed source) is troublesome, you’d better hold onto your hats. The IPCC (and perhaps thereby the AGW scam) is going to find it hard to continue to prop-up its story when the PLETHORA of non-peer reviewed source items sees more light of day. As always, I encourage you all to keep an eye on Watts Up With That?


UN IPCC Admission of non-peer-reviewed data!

<font color="red">“Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. (snip)
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’”[/COLOR]

This is bombshell material to those of us who actually understand how science is supposed to work. This is an admission that (1) They used unverified information, which was clearly not peer-reviewed per their standards, and tried to pass them off as verified facts, but worse is (2) They admit that they knew it was not peer-reviewed, and most damaging of all (3) They admit using non-peer reviewed material for the purposes of influencing government to do something. And now hearken back to all their noise of the IPCC’s work being “politically-neutral”. (As if ANYONE could ever believe anything fronted by the UN is politicall-neutral!)

But wait…it gets better (worse):

IPCC used non-peer-reviewed World Wildlife Fund opinion papers as "evidence"

<font color="red">“Well it turns out that the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) is cited all over the IPCC AR4 report, and as you know, WWF does not produce peer reviewed science, they produce opinion papers in line with their vision. Yet IPCC’s rules are such that they are supposed to rely on peer reviewed science only. It appears they’ve violated that rule dozens of times, all under Pachauri’s watch.
A new posting authored by Donna Laframboise, the creator of NOconsensus.org (Toronto, Canada) shows what one can find in just one day of looking.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html

Here’s an extensive list of documents created or co-authored by the WWF and cited by this Nobel-winning IPCC AR4 report: (long list of non-peer-reviewed opinion papers)”[/COLOR]

But wait…we are not done yet! There is also bogus material in IPCC 2007 report AR4 which purports to blame increasing severe weather events with global warming from a source paper which had not yet completed the referee and publishing process! And what is most damning is that, had they waited until that paper finished the referee process and been published, they would see that the real conclusion about any relationship between severe weather events and man-made global warming was the exact opposite than the one they have been trying to shove down the world’s throat:

IPCC used a paper that had not completed referee/publishing process!

<font color="red">“The problem is that the IPCC cited a study on severe weather event frequency that wasn’t complete yet. When it was complete in 2008, it came to an entirely different conclusion about linkage to global warming:
The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.
When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”
Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.”[/COLOR]

And finally, these bogus claims relate back to the resignation of a hurricane climatologist from the IPCC effort way back in 2005! I would highly recommend you read his letter in its entirety, because in his resignation he was warning us to the politicization of science that was going on at the IPCC in its run-up to its 2007 publishing of its AR4 report:

Chris Landsea's resignation letter from UN IPCC

I find it hard to believe that even the staunchest supporter of AGW who works in the science or engineering community can possibly still believe this BS. That the science has been highly politicized, and therefore polluted, can hardly be denied anymore. It is time for a complete purge and do-over, and I REALLY hope that the faux-scientists at NASA are shaking in their shoes this morning! Well, they may not be shaking in their shoes, but they are already actively trying to re-write their own (bad) scientific history… and not calling note to these changes. Take a look at this find by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.:

NASA changing data without telling anyone?

<font color="red">“The figure immediately below shows Table 5.2 as it was originally published in the Stern Review (from a web archive in PDF), and I have circled in red the order-of-magnitude error in hurricane damage that I document in my paper (the values should instead by 10 times less). (snip graphic)
Now, have a look at the figure below which shows Table 5.2 from the Stern Review Report as it now appears on the UK government archive (PDF), look carefully at the numbers circled in red: (snip another graphic)
There is no note, no acknowledgment, nothing indicating that the estimated damage for hurricanes was modified after publication by an order of magnitude. The report was quietly changed to make the error go away. Of course, even with the Table corrected, now the Stern Review math does not add up, as the total GDP impact from USA, UK and Europe does not come anywhere close to the 1% global total for developed country impacts (based on Muir-Wood), much less the higher values suggested as possible in the report’s text, underscoring a key point of my 2007 paper.”[/COLOR]

NASA’s climate monger and chief AGW Pharisee, James Hansen, seems to wish to simply crawl away unnoticed. I say we don’t let him get away with that!

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

It\'s official: AGW Alarmists BROKE THE LAW!

...it is just too bad for the people who deserve to be brought to justice that the law gave them a "get out of jail free card" as a loophole. I hope that loophole gets plugged so as to not protect future "data diddlers".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.

Wonder how the AGW faithful will attempt to build up apologetics and smokescreens to shade this scientific malfeasance? Oh! I know... just keep repeating the mantra: "The Science is Settled!"

Professor Phil Jones, the unit’s director, stood down while an inquiry took place. The ICO’s decision could make it difficult for him to resume his post.

Let's hope so...and let's also hope he never gets another job in science, for he is really just a political wonk.

In one e-mail, Professor Jones asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

This is the quality of the "science" that is "settled"? Seems like a lot of people who propped-up the IPCC were a little worried that their claims could not stand-up in the face of full-on sunshine beaming on the raw data.

Anyone who continues to try and prop-up the UN IPCC's crap science after this revelation is really just exposing their political ideology, because the science is well on its way to being completely debunked.

Q.E.D.
Ray

 

[Twighlight]

Re: It\'s official: AGW Alarmists BROKE THE LAW!

The whole 'climate change' thing reminds me very much of all the anti-nuclear protests back in the 80s. Lots of bored housewives went and camped outside Greenham Common in UK.....to 'protest' about the presence of US nuclear missiles there. It was the trendy thing to do ! That was the ultimate decade of save a whale, hug a tree, and of course ban anything with the word 'nuclear'......whilst of course the 'green' people then went home to their coal fires and gas guzzling cars.

Of course, all those silly anti-nuclear protestors wouldn't have stood much of a chance up against the Red Army had it decided to walk in.