More Nonsense In The IPCC - Who Would Trust Their Reports?

[JoeBob]

BadenP: Nice personal attack!

Got any sources?

 

(I had to register this comment quickly before the thread gets closed! I'm guessing that getting the thread closed is Baden's ultimate objective.)

[Beavah]

Yah, easy there BadenP.

 

BrentAllen has demonstrated in a large number of posts that he is a thoughtful and committed scouter who is doin' an excellent job for the lads in his troop. I reckon he's contributed quite positively to Scouter.Com.

 

Now the personal pot-shots and such are there, but that's sorta just what happens in da I&P forum. Besides, the "tin ear" comment was pretty mild and probably true, eh? I've got a thick skin, didn't bother me in the least.

 

He's even doin' us a service here, givin' us a window into the thought processes of those that feel the way he does, eh? I think that's interestin', and I do try to listen and understand it. I find it fascinatin' that a few neo-con media gripes about individual studies are enough in peoples' minds to cause 'em to dismiss thousands of research papers and the considered opinion of the bulk of da scientists in a field.

 

It's an interestin' problem of communication, and of education. There's no way in da media to address each issue point by point, and no way to present the other 5,000 studies without people passin' out of boredom. Science and hard work are boring, after all. It's so much more fun and exciting to grab a point here and there and shout "Foul!" at those who have done the work.

 

A bit like all da folks on Medicare screamin' "Socialist!!" at the president. There's no easy way to address it, eh? Yeh sorta have to sit down with each one and explain what socialism really means, and how it doesn't apply, and then how the two programs they're most desperate to hold onto and expand (Social Security and Medicare) are the most "socialist" programs we've got. But yeh can't do that in the media. Explainin' things is boring. And if it's not boring it's considered condescending or elitist (because you took the time to get an education in the field and they didn't I guess). Yelling "Socialist!!" is much more fun and excitin'.

 

That's why that approach has become such a favorite of special interest lobbies on both sides, eh? I know some of da ad folks who write this tripe, right down to sample letters for folks to post in blogs and such. It's all about whippin' up a frenzy and cloudin' the issue, because really understanding an issue takes work and expertise and is boring. If yeh get people excited they'll buy snake oil.

 

I'm hopin' that the young people aren't as susceptible to this stuff as older folks are. So far that seems to be true, at least where the education system isn't a complete failure.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

I thought that attorneys were honorables agents of the court. So every time an attorney discovers that evidence has truly been altered and that key witnesses are lying that to report that they are posturing? I have a higher view of attorneys that none of them would be honest. The AGW data appears to have been altered according to reliable sources. If you read this month's Science, one of the heads of the IPCC is suggesting how to cover up bad science. The Himalayan glaciers are not melting as the IPCC has said. The report containing the Himalayan glaciers data makes a point that the data has been carefully checked and is accurate. If I had the raw data and threw out the temperatures measured near the equator and substituted mountain readings, I can make the global temperature decrease. Members of the IPCC have done just that. In computing there is an old saw that is true: GIGO which stands for Garbage In - Garbage Out which means no matter how well written a code is, bad inputs will always give erroneous answers. So if the raw data has been altered in some way to be supplied to others, no matter how good the code - it will give wrong answers. In the case of climate modeling, supplying bad data will prevent the models from being improved. If politicians favor global warming, they control the funding agencies which fund the research. Enough said.

[Trevorum]

Care for some context? From http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100121/D9DBRVO81.html

 

Jan 20, 9:45 PM (ET)

 

By SETH BORENSTEIN

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world's most authoritative report on global warming, forcing the Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to apologize and promise to be more careful.

 

The errors are in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-affiliated body. All the mistakes appear in a subsection that suggests glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by the year 2035 - hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicates. The year 2350 apparently was transposed as 2035.

 

The climate panel and even the scientist who publicized the errors said they are not significant in comparison to the entire report, nor were they intentional. And they do not negate the fact that worldwide, glaciers are melting faster than ever.

 

But the mistakes open the door for more attacks from climate change skeptics.

 

... a number of scientists, including some critics of the IPCC, said the mistakes do not invalidate the main conclusion that global warming is without a doubt man-made and a threat.

 

This 838-page document had chapters on each continent. The errors were in a half-page section of the Asia chapter. The section got it wrong as to how fast the thousands of glaciers in the Himalayas are melting, scientists said.

 

...A number of scientists pointed out that at the end of the day, no one is disputing the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking.

 

"What is happening now is comparable with the Titanic sinking more slowly than expected," de Boer said in his e-mail. "But that does not alter the inevitable consequences, unless rigorous action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is taken."

 

 

[BrentAllen]

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified

 

Not only that, the erroneous material was included for POLITICAL reasons.

 

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the reports 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.

 

One of the problems bedevilling Himalayan glacier research is a lack of reliable data. But an authoritative report published last November by the Indian government said: Himalayan glaciers have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.

When this report was issued, Raj Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, denounced it as voodoo science.

 

Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature.

In their response, the IPCC authors said, bizarrely, that they were unable to get hold of the suggested references, but would consider this in their final version. They failed to do so.

 

 

Well, Pachauri should know voodoo science when he sees it - there is a boat load of it in the IPCC report. This isn't science, this is political propaganda.

 

 

 

 

[vol_scouter]

Scientists with integrity would never say something like: " We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action." and It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in. as Lal said. For scientists, the science speaks for itself without trying to make a political point. It is becoming clear that at least some of the members of the IPCC and the CRU have damage the reputation of all scientists by being more concerned with politics than with their science. This really sickens me.

[BrentAllen]

More troubling news...

 

Scientists using selective temperature data, skeptics say

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skeptics/2468634/story.html

 

Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

 

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

 

Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

 

Over the past two decades, they say, the percentage of [Canadian] stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half.

 

Using the agencys own figures, Smith shows that in 1991, almost a quarter of NOAAs Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today.

 

Not good...

[BrentAllen]

Is the "fringe" side growing?

 

Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the publics list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey.

 

http://people-press.org/report/584/policy-priorities-2010.

[BadenP]

Yeah Brent those are the same surveys that said Sarah Palin would be a great president, man don't you read any credible news reports or listen to any other news than Fox and Limbaugh. Surveys are like polls slanted from the beginning to obtain a desired response and they mean NOTHING!. You sure are a sad piece of work and a source of abundant false information, and the saddest part is that you believe it is true.

[WAKWIB]

BP I'm not 100% sure I this, but I don't think any of the links or citations BA has used in this long thread (and the other one that had to be closed) have come from FOX or Rush. This recent one certainly did not come either of them.

 

Instead of just trying to put BA in his place, could you share with us a compelling article or two that presents a case for AGW? Specifically how AGW is a clear and present danger and what steps should be taken to stop it.

[JoeBob]

Bad enP:

 

Can you honestly tell yourself that you're enjoying Biden as VP?

 

There's no way that Palin would have been worse! You know that Sarah's got a great Dutch oven moose recipe!

 

;^)

JoeBob

[GernBlansten]

What would you folk like?

 

We've moved from attacking the message to attacking the messenger.

 

You have said that AGW is a hoax because most scientists are left leaning politically biased, fabricated and falsified results to support their claim. That the only true science is coming from a minority of clear thinking politically motivated scientists from the right wing.

 

So who is right? Don't know. Not qualified to second guess. I understand there's bias on both sides. And shenanigans by both agendas.

 

I suppose we would have the same arguments on gravity if it had a political implications.

 

I think I'll base my opinion on what the majority of scientists think is happening, tempered with my own observations and be conservative with the future of our children and their grand children.

 

You all can be as reckless as you wish and liberal with the exploitation of the planet. Its all political. I respect that. Keep true the agenda.

 

I've noticed the true scientist scouters on this board don't take the bait on these threads. I respect them for that. I bet they are chuckling at all the arguments made in this echo chamber.

 

[vol_scouter]

Gern,

 

Several of the posters here that have been dubious of AGW appear to be conservative in their political leanings. However, that does not mean that their understanding of the science is biased. Also, many of the prominent scientists who have questioned AGW are not conservatives. Al Gore has made a fortune peddling AGW and others in the IPCC may see a possibility of doing likewise. Companies that sell offsets have bilked millions of dollars from citizens and companies. Some European governments are investigating. This is not a political argument for me but rather an issue of scientific integrity. As has been noted, none of the climate models were able to predict this winter in the northern hemisphere. That means the programs are faulty, the data is bad, or both. In no way should enormous changes in the economic structure of countries be based on such a model. If it becomes clear in the future that AGW is false, then scientists will be blamed for economic upheavals caused by faulty models. I do not wish to see my profession degraded in such a manner. This is about science for me but it is politics for many. If the country decides to use less fossil fuels and turn to nuclear power for national security reasons, then I will support the efforts. I cannot support the change in policy based upon AGW because the science is not clear.

[GernBlansten]

What I find interesting is the same conservative posters here that claim AGW is a total hoax and the science behind it is so unclear so we can't possibly effect policy based on it; are the same posters who supported invading a sovereign nation, spilling our blood and treasure on even more dubious claims of weapons of mass destruction and driving our nation into a longterm quagmire.

 

Color me skeptical of their motivations and ability to rationally assess issues without a political bias.

[BrentAllen]

So.... I'm assuming that skepticism would extend to ALL those Democrats who publicly stated Saddam had the weapons, and also voted to go to war?

 

Carrying your comparison out a little further, Saddam did everything he could to convince us he was hiding weapons (all in an effort to convince Iraq he had them). The "consensus" among our elected officials and intelligence agencies (as well as international intelligence agencies and the UN) was that he had them. It all turned out to be fake, they didn't exist. Wow, this is starting to sound just like global warming!