Global Warming backdown

[Shady]

Another Shady non-issue... distortion... fabrication!

Spoken like a true religious zealot. Seriously waldo, put the koolaid down! Put the koolaid down! Stop denying the corruption! Stop with the litany of excuses for mistake after mistake after mistake from the so-called "scientists" of global warming. When you excuse failure, you get more of it.

The emerging errors of the IPCC's 2007 report are not incidental but fundamental

The news from sunny Bali that there is to be an international investigation into the conduct of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri would have made front-page headlines a few weeks back.

...

Furthermore, it has also emerged in almost every case that the decision to include these scare stories rather than hard scientific evidence was deliberate. As several IPCC scientists have pointed out about the scare over Himalayan glaciers, for instance, those responsible for including it were well aware that proper science said something quite different. But it was inserted nevertheless – because that was the story wanted by those in charge.

Link

[Keepitsimple]

Here is Stephen McIntyre's submission to the UK Parliamentary Committee looking into the East Anglia fiasco. It makes for very interesting reading and for those who might not be completely up to speed on the "context" surrounding the debate, the submission gives a very concise "skeptics" viewpoint. I'm just displaying the Summary.......the submission is in sections but is well worth reading in its entirety......except for Waldo who will no doubt dismiss every criticism:

THE DISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE DATA FROM THE CLIMATIC RESEARCH

UNIT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA

Stephen McIntyre

Climate Audit

Feb. 10, 2010

Summary

1. Reconstructions of temperature over the past 1000 years have been a highly

visible part of IPCC presentations to the public. CRU has been extremely influential in

IPCC reconstructions through: coauthorship, the use of CRU chronologies, peer review

and IPCC participation. To my knowledge, there are no 1000-year reconstructions which

are truly “independent” of CRU influence. In my opinion, CRU has manipulated and/or

withheld data with an effect on the research record. The manipulation includes (but is not

limited to) arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data.

The problem is deeply rooted in the sense that some forms of data manipulation and

withholding are so embedded that the practitioners and peer reviewers in the specialty

seem either to no longer notice or are unoffended by the practices. Specialists have

fiercely resisted efforts by outside statisticians questioning these practices – the resistance

being evident in the Climategate letters. These letters are rich in detail of individual

incidents. My submission today will not comment on these individual incidents (some of

which I’ve commented on already at Climate Audit), but to try to place the incidents into

context and show why they matter to the research record. I will not comment in this

submission on CRUTEM issues only for space reasons.

Link: http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-scitech.pdf

[Michael Hardner]

We have come to know that the players involved in the IPCC process are biased in favour of the AGW theory - that is the mandate of the IPCC - to study AGW. There are no skeptics within the IPCC - they are simply not allowed. If each step - each decision - each "adjustment" is intentionally or unintentionally even slightly biased towards AGW - how many insignificants create a significant? The difference between warming and no warming could be as little as one half of a degree. The importance of the MET project is critical. If it's found that there has actually been little or no warming outside the bounds of natural Climate Change....this does not dismiss the many scientific studies that have been done. These studies comprise important components of the Climate system. It may be that the collating of the hundreds of independent studies into a "conclusion" is simply not viable at this time. We certainly have a lot more to learn.

Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253543/Met-Office-examine-150-years-temperature-data-wake-Climategate-scandal.html

But if they find that there has been warming, will you be satisfied ? I think it's a good idea that they have done this, to regain the faith of the public but I'm not convinced that the commentators will be fair about the results.

This will be a 3 year project, as noted, and who knows where the debate will be in 3 years' time.

[waldo]

But if they find that there has been warming, will you be satisfied ? I think it's a good idea that they have done this, to regain the faith of the public but I'm not convinced that the commentators will be fair about the results.

This will be a 3 year project, as noted, and who knows where the debate will be in 3 years' time.

of course he won't. He presumes to accept warming... he's stated it many times over, yet continually acts like the DD (denying his denial), "Concern Troll" (definition previously provided) that he is. He'll ignore all the other surface temperature records that are maintained independently from East Anglia, that are processed separately from East Anglia, that use different algorithm's from East Anglia, that are based on different processing methodologies from East Anglia... he'll also ignore the warming shown by satellites... he'll ignore all the other avenues that show warming. He'll continue to concentrate on CRU data because it gives him an avenue to continue his real agenda... to distort, to fabricate, to cast doubt and to cast uncertainty.

[waldo]

Here is Stephen McIntyre's submission to the UK Parliamentary Committee looking into the East Anglia fiasco. It makes for very interesting reading and for those who might not be completely up to speed on the "context" surrounding the debate, the submission gives a very concise "skeptics" viewpoint. I'm just displaying the Summary.......the submission is in sections but is well worth reading in its entirety......except for Waldo who will no doubt dismiss every criticism:

and it's a load of McIntyre bullshit, most of which we've already dealt with in many of the various climate related MLW threads. As I stated earlier to Shady... it was heartening to see him take over Riverwind's conspiracy mantle, given the MIA Riverwind. It is equally heartening to see you begin to directly front for Riverwind's favoured go-to denier blogger. The MIA leader Riverwind is lost only in presence... his posse carries on!!!

[waldo]

Spoken like a true religious zealot. Seriously waldo, put the koolaid down! Put the koolaid down! Stop denying the corruption! Stop with the litany of excuses for mistake after mistake after mistake from the so-called "scientists" of global warming. When you excuse failure, you get more of it.

classic... more British tabloid links from Shady... hey Shady, why don't you link some of that same Shady magic from North American news 'agencies'? Oh... that's right... none of them have (yet) reached to the depths the British tabloids have. Shady, do the British tabloids have better journalistic practices than here in North America... or do you simply favour their type of "intellectual dishonesty"?

[Shady]

classic... more British tabloid links from Shady... hey Shady, why don't you link some of that same Shady magic from North American news 'agencies'? Oh... that's right... none of them have (yet) reached to the depths the British tabloids have. Shady, do the British tabloids have better journalistic practices than here in North America... or do you simply favour their type of "intellectual dishonesty"?

I could link to Canadian, European, and Asian climategate inquiries. However, the liberal media in America has done its very best to keep the lid on the story from the American people. But that's beginning to change.

Climate Panel to Appoint Committee to Review Its Procedures

The world's leading authority on climate change announced Saturday it is appointing an independent committee to investigate whether it needs to change its procedures to ensure it practices rigorous science.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, beset in recent months by a string of allegations of factual mistakes and improper scientific behavior in the preparation of its high-profile reports, said it will share details of how the independent review will work in early March

Link

Hmmm. Why do they need to review procedures if nothing wrong has taken place waldo??? I guess you've been contradicted, by the IPCC you so lovingly adore.

Oh, and this link is from North American media, as per your request. But I'm sure you'll have a litany of excuses ready to minimize the source. As always.

[waldo]

Waldo.....who prepares the Summary for Policy Makers? Is that done by the scientists - or is it done by the IPCC non-scientists? The process is at a minimum, contraversial.....there are many supporters, as would be expected.....but there is also a lot of criticism. Why are you so religiously beholding to a process that has inherent bias built in?

you're an idiot, but thanks for acknowledging that it's scientists that prepare the foundation reports. Yes, most certainly, it's all governments that provide the final sign-off... let's re-emphasize that for the denier impaired. All governments that are signatories to the UNFCCC, have final sign-off. That's a most basic fundamental understanding and if you think that's some kind of a back-handed slap to scientists, you've demonstrated a strange method in your approach up till now. All your previous attacks, your denigrations, have all been targeted towards scientists and your presumed implications that their oversight has had. Did you now just stumble upon something... something... to presume to open your eyes to the political element? Now... if you newest wrinkle will be to head us down the politicization influence angle... at least... it will be something new - from you. C'mon Simple, really take us there - it's not like no one has ever written about it

[Shady]

you're an idiot

There's that intellectual highground that true-believers occupy so well. Winning the hearts and minds of the concerned public.

[waldo]

I could link to Canadian, European, and Asian climategate inquiries. However, the liberal media in America has done its very best to keep the lid on the story from the American people. But that's beginning to change.

Hmmm. Why do they need to review procedures if nothing wrong has taken place waldo??? I guess you've been contradicted, by the IPCC you so lovingly adore.

Oh, and this link is from North American media, as per your request. But I'm sure you'll have a litany of excuses ready to minimize the source. As always.

Shady, a gothca moment. I could drop a hundred links about the WSJ bias... let's rephrase - let's see you begin to parrot from North American mainstream sources that have never shown a continual year-by-year bias against science; more pointedly, a bias against the theory of AGW climate change. (note: that also excludes FOX... F.. O.. X! And... let's not forget the venerable Lorne Gunter from the National Post! It's called independent unbiased sources Shady... it's a new concept for you, but you should try it out for a change.

good to see you keeping up the conspiracy angle... the "liberal Media" is behind it all

Edited February 28, 2010 by waldo

[Michael Hardner]

Who knows. NASA and NOAA have also had to retract some of their global warming hysteria as well.

This research news article from NASA says:

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record

Also, no one should overstate the significance of these corrections and attractions, which happen constantly. Professor Lindzen's temperature readings were off because of satellite data that were wrong in the other direction - temperatures were warmer than recorded. No one would seriously raise charges of cover-up etc., not that you have done that here Shady.

[Michael Hardner]

of course he won't. He presumes to accept warming... he's stated it many times over, yet continually acts like the DD (denying his denial)

If he accepts warming, he's at least shown himself to be open to listening, and reviewing the data. As such, I also have been open to reviewing the criticisms of the climate scientists. Everybody needs to listen more, since the truth isn't yet fully known, and lies somewhere between the extremes. That is a constant.

[Oleg Bach]

It always gets back to the perception if we curb mindless consumerism then we will have less money to spend on consumption. Which is like a tiger chasing his own tail--eventually that tiger has to learn that one meal and a couple of snack a day will suffice. Instead there is this panic that if we clean up the planet and stop acting like tigers that are not house broken- we will end up tigers in poverty..the actual poverty will be a destroyed home..all for the sake of material gluttony.

[Shady]

let's see you begin to parrot from North American mainstream sources that have never shown a continual year-by-year bias against science

PIC

In e-mails, science of warming is hot debate

It began with an anonymous Internet posting, and a link to a wonky set of e-mails and files. Stolen, apparently, from a research center in Britain, the files showed the leaders of climate-change science discussing flaws in their own data, and seemingly scheming to muzzle their critics.

...

Phil Jones, the unit's director, wrote a colleague that he would "hide" a problem with data from Siberian tree rings with more accurate local air temperature measurements. In another message, Jones talks about keeping research he disagrees with out of a U.N. report, "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

...

"To me, it's unambiguous . . . humans are altering the climate system," said Roger Pielke Sr., a research scientist at the University of Colorado. "It's just that, it's much more than CO2."

Pielke said his research shows that, in addition to carbon dioxide and other factors, Earth's warming is affected by how people alter the land. When a forest becomes a farm, or a farm becomes a suburb, that changes the amount of heat and moisture coming off the ground, he said.

But Pielke said he has seen some papers rejected and has felt so marginalized that he quit a U.S. panel summing up climate change a few years ago. One of the stolen e-mails seems to confirm the idea that he was being excluded: In 2005, Jones wrote to colleagues about some of Pielke's complaints, "Maybe you'll be able to ignore them?"

...

These are the facts: After an increase in 1998, the world has been historically warm, but its average temperatures have not climbed steadily.

The Washington Post

[Oleg Bach]

Balance is the key- deniers are not balanced people..whether it be freezing to death or burning to death is a silly and hotly debated bit of entertainment. The real issue should be balance--that we freeze a touch and burn just a bit-- I believe we used to call this balance seasons. The earth by design is just the right distance from the sun to sustain good and happy life..it is a perfect balance. Humanity does not seem to understand this simple and Godly concept--instead they play god and are not very good at it.

[Michael Hardner]

Balance is the key- deniers are not balanced people..whether it be freezing to death or burning to death is a silly and hotly debated bit of entertainment.

I know you like to be a bit of a gadfly here, but you're inviting ridicule if you criticize the balance of others on the board, don't you think ?

[waldo]

There's that intellectual highground that true-believers occupy so well. Winning the hearts and minds of the concerned public.

Shady... is that you... are you a part of the, as you say, "concerned public"? Is your rationale for continually demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty... that you're a part of the "concerned public"?

[waldo]

I know you like to be a bit of a gadfly here, but you're inviting ridicule if you criticize the balance of others on the board, don't you think?

pleeeease! Are you suggesting the need to align lock-step with the denier sentiments expressed by what amounts to a handful of regular posters... since we've lost their main-man Riverwind, it's basically a Simple/Shady show, with an occasional drive-by from the usual suspects.

[Oleg Bach]

I know you like to be a bit of a gadfly here, but you're inviting ridicule if you criticize the balance of others on the board, don't you think ?

Why so you want to get personal with me- what is the profit margin in that? Sure I am off kilter and like to tip the scales into a state of chaotic frenzy at times - but that does not preclude me from knowing what balance is and it's benefits...crazy people do not know they are crazy- I am fully aware of all my friend.

[waldo]

PIC

you obviously place some significance in that graphic you link to.

Shady, let's have you state it absolutely, and leave no doubt... none whatsoever. Let's have you confirm your position on warming... on AGW climate change. Let's actually pull you out of your tabloid cut&paste comfort zone.

do you maintain there has been no warming? Do you unequivocally state that mankind has had no effect on climate change?

can we categorically move you into the confirmed DENIER status?

[Oleg Bach]

Why so you want to get personal with me- what is the profit margin in that? Sure I am off kilter and like to tip the scales into a state of chaotic frenzy at times - but that does not preclude me from knowing what balance is and it's benefits...crazy people do not know they are crazy- I am fully aware of all my friend.

There was a misunderstanding here- There was no personal offending here on my part- I was offending all of humanity...don't take that personally..I do not consider you one of them.

[waldo]

PIC

These are the facts: After an increase in 1998, the world has been historically warm, but its average temperatures have not climbed steadily.

that's right Shady... your belief in anything journalists write certainly carries more weight/significance than anything NASA would provide. But then again, as you've stated... NASA and NOAA are a part of your perceived conspiracy to deny the, as you say, "concerned public", it's right to rely on journalists to provide the "Shady facts".

here Shady... a little more of that NASA conspiratorial input, solely provided to distort "Shady facts"

2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began.

[Michael Hardner]

Why so you want to get personal with me- what is the profit margin in that? Sure I am off kilter and like to tip the scales into a state of chaotic frenzy at times - but that does not preclude me from knowing what balance is and it's benefits...crazy people do not know they are crazy- I am fully aware of all my friend.

That's fine, but I don't turn on the Mexican wrestling channel for the latest financial news either.

I appreciate your being off-kilter as long as you keep your kilt on. You may know what balance is, but is that really part of the personal brand that is "Oleg" ? I would rather read your pronouncements on theatre, cinema and the like than your proclamations on the balance of others.

[Michael Hardner]

There was a misunderstanding here- There was no personal offending here on my part- I was offending all of humanity...don't take that personally..I do not consider you one of them.

You're posting to yourself, Oleg. Need I say more ?

Again, I follow your posts more closely than Peter Mansbridge, so don't take offense.

[waldo]

thanks to the Obama administration (via NOAA) for this excellent new portal... still in 'beta' stage... one of the more interesting parts is it's home page interactive dashboard - select your years and drill down.