Climate Emails Stoke Debate: Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates BitterFeud

[rmnunez]

Dr. Mann controls the scientific debate on climate change:

In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. This committee does not believe that web logs are an appropriate forum for the scientific debate on this issue. http://republicans.energycommerce.ho...man_Report.pdf

Too incestuous a group, they are literally f---king themselves.

[Sonart]

.

And you remain an idiot. Wow... so Dr. Mann has co-authored papers with at least 43 other scientists. This is what scientists do... So friggin' what!

As the co-author of the report states in the same paragraph... "Dr. Wegman stated (suspicions of colusion) was a "hypothesis", and "should be taken with a grain of salt."

From the last paragraph of the Wegman Report, an unrequested report released by the Republican run House committee

"The instrumental temerature results show a close correspondence with the proxy records, especially for the early 20th century increase and variations during 1930-1975."

Which is what I've been telling you over and over and over again... the differences between Mann and McKitrick go back the to MWP. Their measurements of the last 500 years are essentially identical. McKitrick's only beef is whether or not temperatures are warmer now or during the WMP. THAT little question has been resolved... it's warmer NOW!

Your report goes on...

"Additionally, thge multi-decadal intervals support the concepts of the medieval warming period and Little Ice Age period. However, the date of onset are vague and the analysis geographically restricted. The most conclusive finding is that the 20th century is the most anomalous interval in the entire period of analysis, including significant positive extremes in the proxy records."

Among other findings from the Wegman Report....

** The result of fixing some of the alleged errors in the overall reconstruction does not change the general shape of the most recent part of the reconstruction.

** Similarly, studies that use completely different methodologies also yield very similar reconstructions[49].

And from a National Academies of Science review:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years"

This is very old and very tired material, rm, the old Mann/McKitrick debate.

Let's start with the fact that Ross McKitrick isn't even a scientists... he's a professor of economics. Let's add that McKitrick has all the background to be a charter member of the 'Usual Suspects' club.

"Ross McKitrick is an Associate Professor in the Economics Department at the University of Guelph, Ontario, and, since October 2002, has been a Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Vancouver, British Columbia. His name also appears frequently as "Ross McKittrick".

McKitrick has made a name for himself in the last few years as a climate change sceptic since he co-authored the book Taken By Storm, which was published in late 2002. However, his support for conservative challenges to mainstream environmental policies stretches back some years prior to the book. For example in late 1999 defended the Fraser Institute when it criticised proposals for an Endangered Species Act in Canada.

Which is why I've taken to showing this chart...




...indead of Mann's older chart. This chart has -- as it says -- been reconstructed. And it STILL shows temperatures being warmner now than during the MWP.

Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England 2007

.

[rmnunez]

The Wegman report notes that 43 of the scientists cited in the IPCC's reports co-authored articles with Dr. Mann, this is a bit different than saying Dr. Mann has coauthored articles with 43 scientists. It suggests instead, that in order to be cited in the IPCC's reports it helps if a scientist works closely with Dr. Mann.

How can

late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere (be) unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years[/B].

while

instrumental temperature results show a close correspondence with the proxy records, especially for the early 20th century increase and variations during 1930-1975."

Are they saying it has been warmer than ever before in the late 20th century and that it was inordinately warm in the 1930-75 period.

I'm missing the key to the reconstructed temperature chart, but it looks like all the colored lines except the black one are at about the same level (between -0.2 and a bit over 0) just before 2000 and 1000 years ago. Is the black line Co2 levels?

I don't see how McKitrick's credentials are relevant to his climate research, but I take it he hasn't coauthored anything with Dr. Mann.

[mbc85]

"I thought at least the Indian government was acting in the true interest of its people and pulled out of the fiasco?"

Yeah they did. But as soon as one scientist provided proof that some glaciers are expanding, and not really melting away at the alarming rate that the ipcc said, the ipcc chairman completely bashed him saying "it's not true". Btw sooth have you read this "http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15473066"

Oh btw sonart, one of your sources, I think it was the science departnment or something like that (the first one you always show) well its president was publicly being skeptic about "the claim that global warming is caused by human activity." too bad he passed away not too long ago. This guy Frederick Seitz. I am more than sure if I research all your sources I can find people (scientis)denying, human accelerated gw.

[rmnunez]

Some of those scientists described as the 97% have since backed down from their certainty over global warming, the email scandals are lousy PR.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez Are they saying it has been warmer than ever before in the late 20th century and that it was inordinately warm in the 1930-75 period.

{{SIGH}}

No, rm. They are saying, first, that the temperature increases in the 20th century were unprecedented in the last 1,000 years. 'Unprecedented' meaning there's never been anything like it before.

And then, second, they're saying that Manns and McKitricks charts show pretty much the exact same thing during the twentieth century, including "variations during 1930-1975"

Exactly what I just got done telling you. Need a better Spanish to English dictionary, rm? Maybe I can recommend something, because your apparent command of written English seems lacking.

Seriously... what did you think they were saying?

Quote by: rmnunez I'm missing the key to the reconstructed temperature chart, but it looks like all the colored lines except the black one are at about the same level (between -0.2 and a bit over 0) just before 2000 and 1000 years ago. Is the black line Co2 levels?

Are you drunk? LOOK AT THE FRIGGIN' CHART!!!!

What does it say on the left side vertical axis??? It says 'Temperature Anomaly (*C)' ... meaning degrees Celsius. Celsius is a measurement of temperature, so no, the black line is not CO2 levels, because you don't measure CO2 levels in degrees Celsius, do you!

Quote by: rmnunez I don't see how McKitrick's credentials are relevant to his climate research,

You don't? Really? You have no trouble with a libertarian professor of free-market Economics making pronouncements about global climate? Interesting.

Quote by: mbc85 Yeah they did. But as soon as one scientist provided proof that some glaciers are expanding, and not really melting away at the alarming rate that the ipcc said, the ipcc chairman completely bashed him saying "it's not true"

You never actually have a clue to what you're talking about, do you, mbc85? You just mouth whatever was the last thing you heard on right-wing talk radio.

Himalayan Glacier Melting Observed From Space - ScienceDaily, Mar. 2007 - "The Himalaya, the "Roof of the World", source of the seven largest rivers of Asia are, like other mountain chains, suffering the effects of global warming. To assess the extent of melting of its 33 000 km2 of glaciers, scientists have been using a process they have been pioneering for some years.

Satellite-imagery derived glacier surface topographies obtained at intervals of a few years were adjusted and compared. Calculations indicated that 915 km2 of Himalayan glaciers of the test region, Spiti/Lahaul (Himachal Pradesh, India) thinned by an annual average of 0.85 m between 1999 and 2004."

Himalaya glaciers melting much faster - MSNBC, Nov. 2008 - "But just the opposite is proving true, according to new research published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University and a team of researchers traveled to central Himalayas in 2006 to study the Naimona'nyi glacier, expecting to find some melting. Mountain glaciers have been receding all over the world since the 1990s and there was no reason this one, which provides water to the mighty Ganges, Indus, and Brahmaputra Rivers, should be any different.

But when the team analyzed samples of glacier, what they found stunned them. Glaciers around the planet are usually dated by looking for two pulses of radioactivity buried in the ice. These are the leftovers from American and Russian atomic bomb testing in the 1950's and 1960's.

In the Naimona'nyi samples, there was no sign of the tests. In fact, the glacier had melted so much that the exposed surface of the glacier dated to 1944."

IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers - Jan 2010 - "The IPCC says the broader conclusion of the report is unaffected: that glaciers have melted significantly, that this will accelerate and affect the supply of water from major mountain ranges "where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives".

The Indian environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, said earlier in the week: "The [glaciers] are indeed receding and the rate is cause for great concern … [but the claim is] not based on an iota of scientific evidence."

Well, except for maybe the scientifc evidence from NASA and the Ohio University research team.

Are the Himalayan Glaciers melting? Why not see for yourself? - Feb, 2010 - "Every single person spoke with sadness at how quickly the glaciers have receded in their lifetime. Some mentioned to me how many of them have had to move homes in search of better soil, because the melting glaciers have meant changes in water access and there for loss of agricultural productivity. For those of you who are farmers, I’m sure you can understand how painful that process can be.

Furthermore, in a recent interview, the Prime Minister of Nepal, Madhav Kumar, spoke about the Himalaya’s melting around Nepal: “The snows are melting. Glaciers, many of the glaciers, Himalaya glaciers, has evaporated, has disappeared. Many glacial lakes are emerging… We have seen many landslides there and no regular land or rainfall there. Droughts and all these problems relating to the health of the people has been seen… And the impact on the mountainous region is much more in the downstream, where 1.3 billion of the population live in India, in Bangladesh. So the problem of Nepal is not only the problem of Nepal’s people, rather the problem of at least 1.3 billion of population.”

Quote by: rmnunez Some of those scientists described as the 97% have since backed down from their certainty over global warming, the email scandals are lousy PR.

Have they now? Care to prove that, or are you simply talking out of your ass, yet again?

You people are so desperate... the case against you so monumentally overwhelming, that you desperately grasp at the least little thing like a drowning swimmer, "Please, be the thing that saves me!".

You don't even bother to look at what you're grasping! "Oh, it looks bad for them! They lied about melting glaciers!!" No they didn't... they got the amount of time for the entirety of the Himalayas to actually melt wrong. That it IS melting, and quickly, remains undisputed.

"Oh!! Mann's graph was wrong!" Maybe, maybe not, but any errors relate to temperatures many centuries ago. As to the current AGW warming trend, McKitrick's chart agrees with Mann's chart almost exactly!!

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez Some of those scientists described as the 97% have since backed down from their certainty over global warming, the email scandals are lousy PR.

Just as a reminder, rm. It's not the scientists who are changing their minds. It's former skeptics.

Rupert Murdoch, publisher -- "Given his history, Murdoch's U-turn on this issue is enough to provoke whiplash."

Ronald Bailey, ReasonOnline's science correspondent, adjunct scholar at CATO and CEI, and editor of the 2002 book Global Warming and Other Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death - "Since I work for a self-described libertarian magazine that should indicate to even the dimmest reader that I tend to have a healthy skepticism of government "solutions" to problems, including government solutions to environmental problems. So then not a whore, just virtuously wrong."

Sir David Attenborough, naturalist & filmmaker

Newt Gingrich -- "that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere."

Sen. Joe Lieberman - “When former skeptics cite melting habitat as the reason polar bears are now threatened, you know the global warming debate is over.”

Ron Paul, Congressman/Presidential Candidate - "Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice Age. Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown that human beings are most likely a part of this process."

Frank Luntz, Bush policy adviser -- "Many high-profile global warming skeptics have recently changed their position. We've mentioned Sir David Attenborough and Michael Shermer with his "data trumps politics" epiphany, but there are many more that we haven't written about like Gregg Easterbrook and John Tierney. The most remarkable cognitive flip to date must certainly come from Frank Luntz:"

the United States Navy -- "Yes - the United States Commander-and-Chief may be uncertain about global warming, but his Admirals and seamen are confident that it is real and that it will/should shape their maritime strategy."

Richard Branson, entrepreneur

Willliam Briggs, statistician - "And if I was wrong, that meant I wasn’t right. If I wasn’t right, then I could be wrong—about a lot of things."

Prof. Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming." - “Make no mistake: global warming is real" he said. It is caused by manmade carbon-dioxide emissions, he added."

James Overland, Oceanographer NOAA -- "Over­land said he used to be among those skep­ti­cal about the effects of global cli­mate change. The new find­ings, which he termed “star­tling,” were devel­oped at a recent work­shop, he said."

BP and Royal Dutch/Shell Group - "They accept a growing scientific consensus that fossil fuels are a main contributor to the problem and endorse the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which caps emissions from developed nations that have ratified it. BP and Shell also have begun to invest in alternatives to fossil fuels."

Rev. Pat Robertson -- "Robertson joins the chorus of evangelical leaders who have raised the issues of global warming and the environment to a place once reserved for abortion and school prayer by Christian activists."

the Christian Right -- "The question is, do we want to destroy the Creation -- with a capital C [as in the Bible's Creation story] -- because that's what we're doing, and at an accelerating rate."[/QUOTE]


Shipmate: "Captain, the ship is taking on water... should we start bailing yet?"
Captain: "Well we're still afloat so let's see how high the water will get before we start sinking"
Shipmate: "We're taking on water, isn't that sinking?"
Captain: "Maybe it will stop leaking or maybe it won't leak enough to drown us, let's wait and see".

Because, after all, bailing would draw valuable resources away from the normal productive and profitable functions of the crew, now wouldn't it.


.

[rmnunez]

On this consensus:

The Empire article reporting on the Centennial Hall meeting with the makers of the film "Not Evil Just Wrong" states that a representative of the environmental group Oceana encourages an open debate on the issue of global warming. If that is true, it is certainly a change from the usual approach on the part of proponents of man-caused global warming who routinely make pre-emptive strikes against debate by claiming that the issue of global warming is settled science and, therefore, beyond debate. However, there is extensive disagreement among climate scientists as to the cause of global warming. Enough so that proponents have had to resort to the claim that there is a scientific "consensus" regarding man-caused global warming. It is curious that one needs to claim consensus on an issue that is supposedly established by objective scientific research. This is politics, not science. The need to change the descriptive term from "global warming" to "climate change" clearly shows that supporters of man-caused climate change recognize the uncertainty of their claims and the need for a term which covers whatever happens - especially in the face of apparent cooling in the past decade. Also, recent revelations regarding the behavior of high-profile global warming proponents in refusing to show data and threats to destroy such data are particularly damaging. Peer review apparently is out. This, in addition to other claims that have been shown to be false adds to the impression that this is a monumental hoax driven by politics and money. We can be sure that open debate is the last thing the global warming proponents want. We all should support reasonable positive steps to protect our environment, but we need to guard against adoption of programs and policies that will destroy our economy. Even Al Gore doesn't act like he believes what he claims about the pending destruction of our planet. His refusal to answer questions and defend his claims of global catastrophe is particularly revealing. In the final analysis, we need a good dose of caution before charging off on the carbon trading bandwagon. It is simply irresponsible to commit large sums of money and resources to address a problem about which there is so much uncertainty. There are too many unanswered questions. For centuries our world has experienced cycles of both global warming and cooling. The reasons are not well understood. Get ready for the coming ice age - or warming - whichever comes next! Sidney Heidersdorf

I expect some ‘dirt’ on the “Juneau Empire” and Sidney Heidersdorf.

The IPCC's unsubstantiated claim about the Himalayan glaciers is all the more troubling for being accompanied by a string of further problems, including the baseless assertion that 40% of the Amazon rainforest is at imminent risk of disappearing and the false claim that the cost of weather disasters has been rising because of climate change. To maintain credibility, the IPCC must be more than an echo chamber for those who think the best way to make public policy is to scare people. There have long been polarising and bitter clashes between climate change deniers and alarmists. The truth is that exaggeration in either direction is unhelpful in informing us how best to respond to climate change. We require level heads and honesty from climatologists and the IPCC. Last March, more than 100 past lead authors of report chapters met in Hawaii to chart next steps for the panel’s inquiries. One presenter there was John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who has focused on using satellites to chart global temperatures. He was a lead author of a section of the third climate report, in 2001, but is best known these days as a critic of the more heated warnings that climate is already unraveling under the buildup of heat-trapping gases. At the Hawaii meeting, he gave a presentation proposing that future reports contain a section providing the views of credentialed scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature whose views on particular points differ from the consensus. He provided both his poster and summary of his three-minute talk. In an e-mail message to me, he described the reaction this way (L.A. is short for lead author; AR5 is shorthand for the next report, coming in 2013-14.): The reception to my comments was especially cold … not one supporter, though a couple of scientists did say I had a “lot of guts” to stand up and say what I said before 140 L.A.s. I was (and still am) calling for the AR5 to be a more open scientific assessment in which those of us who are well-credentialed and have evidence for low climate sensitivity (observational and theoretical) be given room to explain this. We should have the same standards of review authority too. When a subject is excruciatingly complicated, like climate, we see that opinion, overstatement, and appeal-to-authority tend to reign as those of a like-mind essentially take control in their self-constructed echo-chamber. The world needs to see all sides of the evidence. We in the climate business need to understand humility, not pride, when looking at a million degrees-of-freedom problem. It’s just fine to say, “We don’t know,” when that is the truth of the matter. I also asked him, “Do you see a way forward for this enterprise (presuming you see these recent issues as serious problems but not a fatal indictment)?” He said: I think people would read AR5 if it were a true scientific assessment, complete with controversies [described] by the experts themselves. Policymakers will find it uncomfortable, because the simple fact remains that our ignorance of the climate system is enormous. Otherwise, it will be a repeat of what we are now seeing (and what many folks like me knew years ago), that the process has morphed into an agenda-approving exercise. Roger A. Pielke Jr., a political scientist and specialist in the intersection of climate and disasters at the University of Colorado, Boulder, has been deeply critical of the climate panel for years, contending that it misrepresented work he co-authored and is mired in conflicts of interest. He is one of three climate researchers who co-wrote an opinion column for the German publication Spiegel Online, calling for substantial changes. Here’s how he described a path forward in an e-mail message (I added the links): 1. If I.P.C.C. is to be the most credible scientific body then it needs to have the highest standards for dealing with conflicts of interest and bias — presently it has none. Such standards were discussed in a Bipartisan Policy Commission Report that I helped write last year for how the Obama Administration could improve its scientific advisory processes. The guidelines are appropriate in I.P.C.C. context as well. In short, disclosure, transparency, criteria for conflicts of interest and explicit mechanisms for dealing with conflicts and bias.2. The I.P.C.C. needs to clarify its role in providing advice (what advice? to whom?) and to whom it is accountable. Right now there is an “anything goes” impression. This would mean clarifying its role in advocacy, with respect to policy advice, and also, how its topics are chosen and experts selected. In the language of my book, the I.P.C.C. could simultaneously play the role of a science arbiter and honest broker of policy options. But to do so would require some significant institutional reform. Right now it operates as a “stealth issue advocate” — that is, hiding advocacy in the cloth of science.[/I] From Inside and Out, Climate Panel Is Pushed to Change - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

Pielke sounds familiar, any 'dirt' on him?

Meanwhile today more evidence of global warming?

[Georgia]

Quote by: rmnunez Meanwhile today more evidence of global warming?

Indeed. Some sources are already rediculous in attibuting it to AGW.
But did you know that a big storm, probably any big storm is considered proof of AGW?

My 2010 AGW prediction is the same as every year.

1) Spring will come, chasing away the cold winter. AGW is the speculated cause by the IPCC and climate change scientists.
2) The season will change, causing the snow to melt. The melting snow will run into rivers, causing them to overflow. AGW is the speculated cause by the IPCC and climate change scientists.
3) People who foolishly purchased homes built on known flood planes will loose thier homes for the rising water. AGW will be the speculated cause by the IPCC and climate change scientists.
4) The usual atmospheric fights between warm and cold air will occur, spawning often severe late spring-early summer storms. AGW will be the speculated cause by the IPCC and climate change scientists.
5) Summertime will arrive. Hot. Balmy. AGW will be the speculated cause by the IPCC and climate change scientists.
6) Fall will come, and along with it comes the usual atmospheric fight against competing cold and warm air spawning often severe storms. AGW is the speculated cause by the IPCC and climate change scientists.
7) Winter will finally arrive after a long and hot season. If there is an early snow storm then AGW will be the speculated cause by the IPCC and climate change scientists.

The only difference will likely be every man, woman and child to pay compulsory "donations" to the AGW God via the IPCC, local and national governments worldwide. Maybe not 2010, but that seems to be their goal.

[Georgia]

Quote by: Sonart Shipmate: "Captain, the ship is taking on water... should we start bailing yet?" Captain: "Well we're still afloat so let's see how high the water will get before we start sinking" Shipmate: "We're taking on water, isn't that sinking?" Captain: "Maybe it will stop leaking or maybe it won't leak enough to drown us, let's wait and see". Because, after all, bailing would draw valuable resources away from the normal productive and profitable functions of the crew, now wouldn't it. .

My version:
Shipmate: "Captain, the tax collectors and their scientists are scaring us by saying our ship is taking on water...and want to charge us for it. Should we start payiing yet?"
Captain: "Use some common sense man" (Said with a rough Irish sea-dog voice) "Are we takin' on any water, man?"
Shipmate: "There's a small puddle on the keel. Isn't that sinking?"
Captain: "Eye- Easily scared you are matey, but a small puddle won't sink this mighty ship.".

Moral of the story: The crew arrived to port with their pockets full- and not the tax collectors or their scientists.

[Questatement]

Quote by: Sonart Except that I don't use UN sources. National Academy of Sciences American Geophysical Union American Meteorological Society National Weather Association National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NASA American Association for the Advancement of Science / The Journal Science American Chemical Society US National Research Council Journal of the American Medical Association Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes The National Geographic Society the World Meteorological Organization Scientific American Magazine The Journal Nature

Naturally, I could have included your entire list of 'independent' sources but suffice it to say from reviewing the last four, they are all dependent on and/or integrated with (in bed with) the IPCC in one way or another.

Quote by: Sonart The National Geographic Society

Global Warming "Marches On"; Past Decade Hottest Known

The past decade has been the hottest on record, according to new global warming data released today at the Copenhagen climate conference by the World Meteorological Organization.

Quote by: Sonart the World Meteorological Organization

Global Sea-Level Rise Update

Factors Contributing to Sea-Level Rise One of the key scientific achievements since the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that the estimates of various factors contributing to the global sea-level rise have started to sum up to a total that matches the observed values over recent decades with unprecedented accuracy (Domingues and others, 2008), especially from 2003 to date (Leuliette and Miller, 2009). At the same time, results of the ongoing research and recent observations point to two factors suggesting that the IPCC AR4 conclusions concerning the rate of future change in the global mean sea level may be on the conservative side.

Quote by: Sonart Scientific American Magazine

Warmer Antarctica Shows Climate Changing on Every Continent

Humanity's impact on climate has been detected on every continent except Antarctica, or so said the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in February 2007. No longer: scientists, comparing decades of records from 17 Antarctic weather stations with computer simulations of Earth's climate, found that human-induced global warming has been heating up the continent that is home to the South Pole, as well.

Quote by: Sonart The Journal Nature

The worst-case scenario

Thinking about worst-case scenarios is nothing new — climate scientists have been doing it for more than 20 years. In 1988, after intense heat waves baked the eastern and central United States, Robert Watson, later to chair the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and I briefed Bill Bradley, the Democrat senator for New Jersey, on the risks of disproportionate surprises from rapid, major climate change.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Questatement Naturally, I could have included your entire list of 'independent' sources but suffice it to say from reviewing the last four, they are all dependent on and/or integrated with (in bed with) the IPCC in one way or another.

Right... and I'm involved with oil companies and the free market too. Every day!

If you think you can discredit the Journals Science, Nature and Scientific American, or the National Geographic Society because dared to mention the IPCC report, by all means.... fire away.

1 -- "Global Warming "Marches On"; Past Decade Hottest Known"
2 -- "Global Sea-Level Rise Update"
3 -- "Warmer Antarctica Shows Climate Changing on Every Continent"
4 -- "The worst-case scenario"

Yeah.... aaaannnd.... soooooo?

1 -- Is even mentioning the IPCC in passing now a kiss of death? National Geographic says this is the hottest decade in recorded history. So does NASA. What's your point?

And it's going to get hotter. The hottest decade ends and since there's no Maunder minimum - sorry deniers - the hottest decade begins - Dec. 2009

2 -- Regarding the World Meteorological Organization's report on sea level rise. They refer to the IPCC report. Again, so? In fact, the WMO disagrees with the IPCC report and seems to think thir estimate is too low!

"At the same time, results of the ongoing research and recent observations point to two factors suggesting that the IPCC AR4 conclusions concerning the rate of future change in the global mean sea level may be on the conservative side."

And these people agree with the WMO... Sea level rise could bust IPCC estimate - NewScientist Mar. 2009 - "Sea level rises could bust official estimates – that's the first big message to come from the climate change congress that kicked off in Copenhagen, Denmark, today.

Researchers, including John Church of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, presented evidence that Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice fast, contributing to the annual sea-level rise. Recent data shows that waters have been rising by 3 millimetres a year since 1993.

Church says this is above any of the rates forecast by the IPCC models. By 2100, sea levels could be 1 metre or more above current levels, he says. And it looks increasingly unlikely that the rise will be much less than 50 centimetres."

Sea levels rising above IPCC forecasts? Hmmm, there's some food for thought. Maybe you should hope the IPCC got one right for a change.

3 -- And Scientific American reporting warming on every continent... correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently Scientific American is also disagreeing with the IPCC report.

"...or so said the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in February 2007. No longer:"

Read English much?

4 -- And finally, "the Worst Case Scenerio".

Let's see if I have this right? In April of last year, long before climategate broke out, an article in the Journal Nature points out in passing that over twenty years ago the author of the article and another renowned American scientist, Robert Watson, who would later go on to chair the infamous IPCC report, talked about worst case climate scenarios to Senator Ben Bradley.

That's it? Was Watson included in Stanford professor Schneider's article? Did you read his article? Was it flawed in some way?

Or is this just another cheap ass 'gotcha', guilt by association 20 years ago with someone who would later become so scientifically respected that he was named to chair a massive United Nations report that ended up with a few errors in it. "Someone knew a guy who knew someone who once read something on the IPCC report?"

Quote by: Georgia Moral of the story: The crew arrived to port with their pockets full- and not the tax collectors or their scientists.

No they didn't... the ship sank. They lied to everyone about the 'puddle' in the keel. Remember?

.

[rmnunez]

The World Meteorological Organization is a UN agency (like the IPCC). And remember (as it is often repeated when discussing terribly cold weather) meteorology is about the weather not climate.

It's not often we witness a 100-year-plus record fall. Perhaps it's fitting it went out in such extreme fashion today. As reported here earlier, National Airport's preliminary (2 p.m.) snow total of 54.9" for the 2009-2010 winter thus far puts D.C. above the previous high mark of 54.4" set way back in 1898-1899. Baltimore has also broken its all-time record with this event.

Capital Weather Gang - (washingtonpost.com)
More snow has fallen in Washington DC this year than any previous year for the past century, Evidently the historical record shows it hasn’t snowed as much in DC ever before. When they say Earth is undergoing climate change and they mean the planet is experiencing global warming, wouldn't this mean the average temperature is rising (that it is getting hotter)?.

[mbc85]

Global warming is gonna end up making life like "water world"

I was just watching the news and I saw what you pointed out nunez.

[soothsayer]

I think all the deliberation over temperatures, rainfall, snowfall, volatility etc cannot be definitively charted. Theres so many variables, inaccuracies, groupthink, inhibition, ridicule, deliberate fraud and fudging as well as honest mistakes.


The whole point about AGW, GW or "climate change" is the way its being purported as a crisis in order to enact global totalitarian measures.

The common thread is always money and manipulation and overt brainwashing of children (well, as many posters here show, some are older than children)

[G. Adams]

I apologise if someone's already picked up on this, don't have time to catch up with this entire thread yet.

Quote by: Sonart You don't? Really? You have no trouble with a libertarian professor of free-market Economics making pronouncements about global climate? Interesting.

I suppose then Sonart that if we find any left wing credentials at all on a scientist, that rules out their opinion? In fact, if we find that a researcher's has any political interest, nay, any human emotions at all, that his work is compromised.

Seriously Sonart, are you resorting to such piss-poor arguments these days as to dismiss a man's work on the grounds that he prefer's to control his own life than have someone else do it for him?

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: G. Adams I apologise if someone's already picked up on this, don't have time to catch up with this entire thread yet. I suppose then Sonart that if we find any left wing credentials at all on a scientist, that rules out their opinion? In fact, if we find that a researcher's has any political interest, nay, any human emotions at all, that his work is compromised. Seriously Sonart, are you resorting to such piss-poor arguments these days as to dismiss a man's work on the grounds that he prefer's to control his own life than have someone else do it for him?

Sorry G, that does not compute. The mans "work" can be dismissed not simply because of his economic and political position but because he is stepping well out of his area of knowledge and specialism and applying his politics as a substitute for actual understanding.

By the same token leftwing talking-heads working in the humanities may also be dismissed on this topic. The opinion that matters necessarily must be expert opinion.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Sorry G, that does not compute. The mans "work" can be dismissed not simply because of his economic and political position but because he is stepping well out of his area of knowledge and specialism and applying his politics as a substitute for actual understanding. By the same token leftwing talking-heads working in the humanities may also be dismissed on this topic. The opinion that matters necessarily must be expert opinion.

Talking beyond your range of professional expertise doesn't make your findings wrong.

True, there's lot of different research to read and in pure terms of filtering to the most likely useful you would knock him off the list. But it doesn't make the man's work wrong. There are a lot of amateur experts out there too. Lack of related profession or qualification doesn't prevent expertise.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Sorry G, that does not compute. The mans "work" can be dismissed not simply because of his economic and political position but because he is stepping well out of his area of knowledge and specialism and applying his politics as a substitute for actual understanding. By the same token leftwing talking-heads working in the humanities may also be dismissed on this topic. The opinion that matters necessarily must be expert opinion.

Talking beyond your range of professional expertise doesn't make your findings wrong.

True, there's lot of different research to read and in pure terms of filtering to the most likely useful you would knock him off the list. But it doesn't make the man's work wrong. There are a lot of amateur experts out there too. Lack of related profession or qualification doesn't prevent expertise.

Edit: Oh and before we get sidetracked, Sonart's point wasn't that he wasn't qualified to give an authoratative opinion about a subject because of lack of expertise, but because of his political persuasion. If Sonart merely wanted to criticise his lack of relevant credentials, he should limit his arguement to that point alone, rather than dragging in the man's persuasion.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: G. Adams Talking beyond your range of professional expertise doesn't make your findings wrong. True, there's lot of different research to read and in pure terms of filtering to the most likely useful you would knock him off the list. But it doesn't make the man's work wrong. There are a lot of amateur experts out there too. Lack of related profession or qualification doesn't prevent expertise.

That is true to an extent, but if those 'findings' directly contradict those individuals who actually do know what they are talking about, it gives you a clue as to their merit.

Quote by: G Oh and before we get sidetracked, Sonart's point wasn't that he wasn't qualified to give an authoratative opinion about a subject because of lack of expertise, but because of his political persuasion.

On the contrary it was a mixture of the two, and Sonart is absolutely correct. In my own field of research (ww2 history) a professor of electrical engineering named Arthur Butz, and a white nationalist, began moonlighting as a historian and wrote a book proclaiming that the holocaust was a hoax. Not only was he stepping out of actual area of expertese, but his politics were clearly a substitute for that missing knowledge and understanding.