H1N1 and Climate Change

[Keepitsimple]

clearly, Junior has to carve out a niche... somehow - after all, he's got such big shoes to fill. Not everyone could parlay a political-science degree into a self-described "climate expert", so effectively, as Pielke Jr. has done with his. Pielke Sr. must be proud

as for Pielke Jr's supposed debunk, I think I prefer this blog accounting that actually speaks to the issue at hand - unlike Pielke Jr's self-serving, spin-doctoring.

Pseudo-science begets pseudo-insurance — and another phony attack on the IPCC is debunked - Climate change is the greatest risk facing the insurance industry

You can throw that in the dustbin just by reading the first sentence.......like many have said - there are billions at stake - not the least of which are higher insurance premiums to account for the increased catastophes that are bound to happen because the IPCC says so. Follow the money. You're a desperate man or woman Waldo.

[noahbody]

There was a story about the need to move snow to cypress mountain last night on the ctv news. David Suzuki inferred that it was due to global warming. If that's not an attempt to manipulate the uninformed, i don't know what is. What a joke!

[waldo]

I would say the only people who think the ruling means anything are the blind AGW fanatics like yourself. People with or more balanced view of the world can understand that a university that receives millions in funding due to a prominent scientist is in no position to determine whether that scientist violated any ethical rules.

excellent - I see you're getting a little edgy... it's been a while since you've trotted out the ole zealot/fanatic tag. It's heartening to read your balanced position commenting on balanced views

I'm particularly taken with the subsequent headlines that read along the lines of “Nittany not-Lyin" - quite clever... don't you think?

of course, you can support your statement right... just how much funding are you claiming it took to influence Penn State's investigation? After all, it's only their reputation at stake... what funding amount do you claim was at stake? Other than your personal biased assessment, can you provide anything to substantiate your, uhhh... balanced view?

[Riverwind]

The figures speak for themselves: according to data gathered by Munich Re, weather-related natural catastrophes have produced US$ 1,600bn in total losses since 1980, and climate change is definitely a significant contributing factor.

There is absolutely no science that supports that claim. It is self serving rubbish dreamed up by insurance companies as a excuse to charge more money for insurance.

Aside: You would laugh if I presented a quote from the CEO of Exxon as an argument. The CEO of a insurance company is no more credible than the CEO of Exxon and I am amazed that you are blind to your own hypocrisy..

[waldo]

You can throw that in the dustbin just by reading the first sentence.......like many have said - there are billions at stake - not the least of which are higher insurance premiums to account for the increased catastophes that are bound to happen because the IPCC says so. Follow the money. You're a desperate man or woman Waldo.

poor Simple ton & supporting Riverwind cast - I appreciate that article was a bit challenging for you... all those details, those fancy graphs, all that data, the bazillion links to supporting references/articles, all those fancy-smancy acronyms... and just imagine the gall of actually speaking to the related aspects of disaster related risk assessment/disclosure by engaging those directly involved - what a concept!

[waldo]

it's a blog day... the further busting of "Amazongate"

Leakegate:

Jonathon Leake recently wrote a story alleging that the statement in the IPCC AR4 WG2 that up to 40% of the Amazon forest could vanish due to climate change was "bogus". Deltoid can now reveal that Leake deliberately concealed the fact that Dan Nepstad, the author of the 1999 Nature paper cited as evidence for the claim about the vulnerability of the Amazon had replied to Leake's query and informed him the claim was basically correct:

The Amazongate fiasco

A claim published in the Sunday Times over the veracity of a statement published in an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report may land the British newspaper in hot water.

.

.

But Leake either overlooked or failed to comprehend the research upon which the WWF report is based. That data clearly supports both the WWF report and the IPCC report. Leake was actually warned of this oversight by the scientist who conducted the original drought research in the Amazon: Daniel Nepstad, now of the Woods Hole Research Institute.

Edited February 4, 2010 by waldo

[Michael Hardner]

just how much funding are you claiming it took to influence Penn State's investigation? After all, it's only their reputation at stake... what funding amount do you claim was at stake? Other than your personal biased assessment, can you provide anything to substantiate your, uhhh... balanced view?

Penn State wouldn't need outside influence if they're simply self-investigating. They have a built-in motive to whitewash as much as possible. Elsewhere on this thread it was stated that, in effect, Mann was simply asked if he was guilty.

Is that the case here ? If so, then don't you think that the investigation is a sham ?

[waldo]

Penn State wouldn't need outside influence if they're simply self-investigating. They have a built-in motive to whitewash as much as possible. Elsewhere on this thread it was stated that, in effect, Mann was simply asked if he was guilty.

Is that the case here ? If so, then don't you think that the investigation is a sham ?

and... it was an investigation of the conduct of one of it's faculty. The investigation doc I previously linked to speaks to more than the cursory, dismissive, "simply asked" summation you give it. And, as if the usual suspects didn't have their prepared "outrage" waiting in the wings.

FWIW, Penn State didn't "need" to do the, as you say, "self-investigation". If you equally subscribe to the whitewash motivation, I would be encouraged to (also) see your supporting qualification of how much/little it took to "encourage" that so-called motivation. Clearly, Mann is marked/targeted, regardless... he always has been given the... motivation... of the denier camp. Would it not have been easier for Penn State to have simply, "thrown him under the bus"? And yet - they didn't. It's not like they would have been the first academic institution to have ever done it...

[Michael Hardner]

and... it was an investigation of the conduct of one of it's faculty. The investigation doc I previously linked to speaks to more than the cursory, dismissive, "simply asked" summation you give it. And, as if the usual suspects didn't have their prepared "outrage" waiting in the wings.

FWIW, Penn State didn't "need" to do the, as you say, "self-investigation". If you equally subscribe to the whitewash motivation, I would be encouraged to (also) see your supporting qualification of how much/little it took to "encourage" that so-called motivation. Clearly, Mann is marked/targeted, regardless... he always has been given the... motivation... of the denier camp. Would it not have been easier for Penn State to have simply, "thrown him under the bus"? And yet - they didn't. It's not like they would have been the first academic institution to have ever done it...

Thanks - I didn't look at that link earlier. I see that they are still looking into one of the allegations, but the report on the others seems to offer an adequate response.

[Riverwind]

Thanks - I didn't look at that link earlier. I see that they are still looking into one of the allegations, but the report on the others seems to offer an adequate response.

It is not even close to adequate. For example this claim:

The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.

Is complete BS. Splicing smoothing two different sets of data in order to make them look like a single series is an extremely deceptive practice and there is no legimate scientific justification for it. In fact here is what one climate scientist said in 2004 about that practice:

No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

Any guesses on who said it? Edited February 4, 2010 by Riverwind

[Shady]

Uh oh!?

"In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades."

Science Daily

Quick waldo, damage control, damage control! Sound the alarm! All true-believers to the flight deck! That's all true-believers to the flight deck!

[waldo]

Uh oh!?

Science Daily

Quick waldo, damage control, damage control! Sound the alarm! All true-believers to the flight deck! That's all true-believers to the flight deck!

poor Shady - you would presume damage?... you would presume control? Shady... let's have some fun - would you care to distinguish between

1 - the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions &

2 - the CO2 fraction in the air

and while you're at it... what has the IPCC stated concerning the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions... what is in the AR4 report in that regard. Honest Shady, I'm not setting you up - trust me

[Michael Hardner]

Is complete BS. Splicing smoothing two different sets of data in order to make them look like a single series is an extremely deceptive practice and there is no legimate scientific justification for it. In fact here is what one climate scientist said in 2004 about that practice:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we talking about estimates of real temperatures here and not a model ? It's not extremely deceptive if there's a reason for using some datasets in some cases and others in other cases.

For 20th century tree ring data, they know that the temperatures indicated were wrong, so why use them ?

[Shady]

what has the IPCC stated

Why would anyone give a crap what the IPCC stated on anything? They've already admitted to lying on several issues. They're a bunch of crooks and liars.

“In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” the group explained in a prepared statement.

Link

Pachauri admits IPCC’s credibility damaged

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on Wednesday admitted that its credibility was damaged by the controversy over its 2007 report, which falsely claimed that the Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035.

But he refused to apologise, saying he was not personally responsible for the mistake. He insisted that it was an “isolated” mistake and “totally out of character” with the panel’s rigorous standards.

Link

Yes, it's amazing just how many "isolated" mistakes the IPCC happens to make.

[waldo]

Uh oh!?

Science Daily

Quick waldo, damage control, damage control! Sound the alarm! All true-believers to the flight deck! That's all true-believers to the flight deck!

poor Shady - you would presume damage?... you would presume control? Shady... let's have some fun - would you care to distinguish between

1 - the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions &

2 - the CO2 fraction in the air

and while you're at it... what has the IPCC stated concerning the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions... what is in the AR4 report in that regard. Honest Shady, I'm not setting you up - trust me

Why would anyone give a crap what the IPCC stated on anything? They've already admitted to lying on several issues. They're a bunch of crooks and liars.

Shady, you've dropped a blind link where you presume to suggest something relevant related to the "the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions". You must feel it extremely significant given your repeated "damage control" reference. You hold to an underlying premise of casting aspersion towards the IPCC... hence why you were challenged in that regard; i.e. to actually indicate whether the IPCC position/statement would contradict or be accepting to your linked to article's premise. But no problem... given your suggestion, let's eliminate the IPCC position/statement in consideration of your linked article's specific content.

So... that damage control you speak to, Shady. In what regard, Shady? Where is your suggested damage and why is your suggested control needed? In particular Shady, as previously asked Shady, how does your suggestion of damage & control align to your failure to distinguish between

1 - the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions &

2 - the CO2 fraction in the air

[Shady]

More fallout from the IPCC corruption.

IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri under pressure to go over glacier error

The head of the UN’s climate change body is under pressure to resign after one of his strongest allies in the environmental movement said his judgment was flawed and called for a new leader to restore confidence in climatic science.

Link

Yikes!

And now former AGW supporters are turning on them as well!

Climate-change scientists—so serious, so sincere, so ... scandalous?

Because of manmade global warming, I warned in 1996, that “sea levels could rise as much as three feet by the year 2100 … warming can lead to hotter and more frequent heat waves … stronger and more frequent hurricanes to Hawai‘i … endanger native plants species [and] coral reefs.” These dire predictions came from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia provide much of the IPCC’s analysis and predictions. In November 2009, hackers released thousands of e-mails from the CRU, going back years, and it is these e-mails that reveal the very unscientific, unethical activities I described above.

I feel I’ve been had.

Link

Question. How long before AGW scientists are considered to be the equals of used-car salesmen?

[waldo]

Shady... does Simple know you’re taking over his job

Shady, why are you ignoring the following? Would it have something to do with you not knowing your ass from a hole in the ground?

Uh oh!?

Science Daily

Quick waldo, damage control, damage control! Sound the alarm! All true-believers to the flight deck! That's all true-believers to the flight deck!

poor Shady - you would presume damage?... you would presume control? Shady... let's have some fun - would you care to distinguish between

1 - the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions &

2 - the CO2 fraction in the air

and while you're at it... what has the IPCC stated concerning the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions... what is in the AR4 report in that regard. Honest Shady, I'm not setting you up - trust me

Why would anyone give a crap what the IPCC stated on anything? They've already admitted to lying on several issues. They're a bunch of crooks and liars.

Shady, you've dropped a blind link where you presume to suggest something relevant related to the "the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions". You must feel it extremely significant given your repeated "damage control" reference. You hold to an underlying premise of casting aspersion towards the IPCC... hence why you were challenged in that regard; i.e. to actually indicate whether the IPCC position/statement would contradict or be accepting to your linked to article's premise. But no problem... given your suggestion, let's eliminate the IPCC position/statement in consideration of your linked article's specific content.

So... that damage control you speak to, Shady. In what regard, Shady? Where is your suggested damage and why is your suggested control needed? In particular Shady, as previously asked Shady, how does your suggestion of damage & control align to your failure to distinguish between

1 - the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions &

2 - the CO2 fraction in the air

[Keepitsimple]

From Shady's article......many of us feel this way.

This doesn’t necessarily mean manmade global warming is disproven. But it does deflate the certainty and moral righteousness of the Al Gores and the IPCCs of the world. At Copenhagen and in Congress, politicians have proposed massive disruptions to our economies and lifestyles in the name of halting global warming. It turns out they’ve been doing so, at least partly, with books that have been cooked more than the planet.

[waldo]

From Shady's article......many of us feel this way.

Simple - none of these, of late, WG2 trivial and inconsequential items have any real significance. Do you not recognize, not acknowledge, the concerted effort at work - is it simply a coincidence that this crap, truly trivial and inconsequential crap, is coming forward, in the manner and timing/frequency that it is? Each of the silly 'gates' has been pushed back - Amazongate, dispatched (quite easily), Glaciergate (absolute trivial & inconsequential), Hikergate (c'mon... peer review of hiker comments concerning lost hiking days... really!) etc., etc., etc.

Great tit for tat, a significant portion of it generated through sloppy journalism - to the point that it rarely matters what's even printed any more... get the headline out... who needs serious investigation. And a thousand papers and blogs blindly pick up whatever spews forth... satisfying the ultimate goal... manufactured doubt and uncertainty. For someone even on the skeptic fence, this should be a cause for concern - as it seriously undermines what should matter to each and every one of us. Absolute and unreserved consensus - in whatever regard.

[Riverwind]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we talking about estimates of real temperatures here and not a model?

Technically, estimating temperatures from tree rings is a model that relies a large number of assumptions about the biology of trees.

It's not extremely deceptive if there's a reason for using some datasets in some cases and others in other cases.

It is not deceptive if you make it clear that there are two datasets plotted on the same graph. It is deceptive if you take the two datasets a splice them together to make them look like a single series. That is why Mann bristled when he was accused of doing that in 2004 yet in 2010 he is arguing that it is 'standard scientific practice'.

For 20th century tree ring data, they know that the temperatures indicated were wrong, so why use them?

Do we know they are wrong? Trees measure local temperature - not global temperatures and the local temperature records in remote areas are spotty at best. It is quite possible that the trees are correctly measuring temperature for the region where they were found.

Even if the divergence is real it is deceptive to omit the decline because we do not know that the decline was unique to the 20th century. Leaving the data in correctly conveys the potential unreliability of the reconstruction. Leaving it out conveys a false sense of reliability.

[Michael Hardner]

Do we know they are wrong? Trees measure local temperature - not global temperatures and the local temperature records in remote areas are spotty at best. It is quite possible that the trees are correctly measuring temperature for the region where they were found.

From my reading on this, it`s my impression that they`re wrong. This is the point to be resolved, I suppose.

[Riverwind]

From my reading on this, it`s my impression that they`re wrong. This is the point to be resolved, I suppose.

Whether it is resolved in the future is irrelevant. The problem is at the time the graphs were created they did not know why the decline occurred. They had some theories but with little supporting evidence. Given the lack of explaination it is deceptive to leave it out - just like it would be deceptive to show short price chart that ended in 2006. Edited February 5, 2010 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

Whether it is resolved in the future is irrelevant. The problem is at the time the graphs were created they did not know why the decline occurred. They had some theories but with little supporting evidence. Given the lack of explaination it is deceptive to leave it out - just like it would be deceptive to show short price chart that ended in 2006.

But they had other data - real temperature readings so why use tree ring proxies then ?

Do the scientists discuss what happens when the proxies diverge during other periods of time ?

[Riverwind]

But they had other data - real temperature readings so why use tree ring proxies then ?

They use the proxies because they wanted to show that the temperatures over the last 1000 years or so were cooler than today. They claim to be able to do that because tree rings are, in theory, correlated with temperatures. The problem is the correlation breaks down after 1960. That could mean one of two things:

1) Some factor unique to the 20th century caused the correlation to break down.

2) The assumption that tree rings are correlated to temperature is wrong.

The scientists in question do not want to consider 2) because it means they cannot use the data and if they cannot use the data they don't have papers to publish. So what they did is *assume* that 1) is true without any real evidence to support that assumption. They then deliberately hid the data that would have warned any astute observer that all is not necessarily right with these tree ring reconstructions.

What they did is no different from a mutual fund sales person that shows a graph of the fund's performance until 2007 and then buried in the text below added a comment that performance after 2007 was omitted because the authors believe that the 2007-2010 meltdown was a 'unique event'. I am sure you would not trust a mutual fund sales person that did that and you should not trust a scientist that resorts to similar tactics.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

What they did is no different from a mutual fund sales person that shows a graph of the fund's performance until 2007 and then buried in the text below added a comment that performance after 2007 was omitted because the authors believe that the 2007-2010 meltdown was a 'unique event'. I am sure you would not trust a mutual fund sales person that did that and you should not trust a scientist that resorts to similar tactics.

Mutual fund people do that all the time, to explain a particular bad patch for a fund. Anyway, let's not mess with the analogies. Surely what you're talking about is pretty simple and straightforward, so I'll take a little time to look into this.