Global Warming backdown

[waldo]

Peer review involves publishing as well as having the paper reviewed. It's more stringent. So how can you say publishing is true scientific review ? Peer review highlights important questions about theories that are presented - for example, the latest publication by Eigil Friis-Christensen has important questions outstanding on it.

Global Warming, evolution and such theories can't really be "proven" as such anyway.

it's because he hasn't a clue - none - what peer review actually is... obviously, to the informed, peer review encompasses the review, publishing and peer response (if appropriate). There is a sense of validity achieved within an initial review, but by no means is this "proof". It doesn't matter how many times we keep telling Simple that there are no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). Certainly, peer review isn't infallible. Simple speaks of naivety, and then proceeds to write all about his.

[Shady]

I recently stated in a status update that spring is coming, the weather's getting warmer, uh oh, global warming!

President Clinton has apparently made the same joke. I guess great minds think alike!

Clinton Returns to Washington, Needling Himself, Obama and the Press

Elsewhere in his remarks, he noted he was speaking on the night before the start of spring, “otherwise known to Al Gore as proof of global warming.”

Link

[Pliny]

shot is too extreme but at least lobotomized since they're not using the frontal lobe of their brain we might as well reduce their stress levels and lower mental abilities to a minimum ......

You have nothing on Goebbels!

[Pliny]

One important point that often gets overlooked is that a paper that is "peer reviewed" is not proof. Peer review is basically a means for an author to prevent completely embarrassing himself through typos or oversight - at most, it's a review of the process or approach and whether that seems reasonable. Anyone who believes that peer-reviewing results in "proof" is naive. There should never be any discussion of peer review supporting the credibility or truth of a paper. This is the purpose of publishing. Publishing is the true scientific review. Publishing is the means by which scientists present an idea to the world. Publishing is where you put your idea out there for anyone and everyone with an opinion to weigh in with support or objection. That's why it is so critical to provide clear access to data or programs or any other "input" - so that others can verify the idea's conclusions. Often it's not just to be critical - but to make sure that if they use the idea to build their own expanded theory, or idea - that they are building on a solid foundation. Over time, an idea or theory may gain credibility through it's ability to survive constructive critiques - often through further real-world testing or observation. That does not dismiss entirely the credibility of Climate Change ideas and studies....but it does lend food for thought that the foundations of Climate Change Science are still being built upon many background "peer-reviewed" studies that have not had an opportunity to stand the test of time.....and of course it makes it all the more troubling that "sceptics" are treated as "troublemakers".

Good post!

The sixties saw medical science reject butter and encourage the use of margarine with hydrogenated oils today heart disease is the number one cause of death. I'm sure the studies were all peer reviewed but hydrogenated oils are quickly disappearing on grocery shelves. What did the peer reviewed papers on Vioxx prove?

[Pliny]

Peer review involves publishing as well as having the paper reviewed. It's more stringent. So how can you say publishing is true scientific review ? Peer review highlights important questions about theories that are presented - for example, the latest publication by Eigil Friis-Christensen has important questions outstanding on it.

Global Warming, evolution and such theories can't really be "proven" as such anyway.

I think he is saying that publishing allows opportunity for broad scientific reveiw. The peer review process looks for flaws in the scientific procedure and as he pointed out is indeed no guarantee of "proof"!

[waldo]

I think he is saying that publishing allows opportunity for broad scientific reveiw. The peer review process looks for flaws in the scientific procedure and as he pointed out is indeed no guarantee of "proof"!

Pliny... another case in point - another purveyor of nonsense... there is no separation flow between peer review, publishing and peer response. They are all part of the collective termed, "Peer Review". Again, science doesn't deal in proof. Pliny, the malcontent rebel

[Pliny]

it's because he hasn't a clue - none - what peer review actually is... obviously, to the informed, peer review encompasses the review, publishing and peer response (if appropriate). There is a sense of validity achieved within an initial review, but by no means is this "proof". It doesn't matter how many times we keep telling Simple that there are no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). Certainly, peer review isn't infallible. Simple speaks of naivety, and then proceeds to write all about his.

True Skeptics are always asking for "proof" from people who have certain beleifs. this post illustrates why you can never prove anything to a skeptic. "There are no proofs in science". Want to go in circles argue with a skeptic. They can't know anything becasue there are no proofs. They can only suspect something might be. They never lose an argument this way. Because if anthropogenic global warming were an entirely political issue with no scientific basis they would just say that they weren't wrong because science offers no proofs and AGW may still be a possiblity.

Never argue with a skeptic who asks for "proofs". There aren't any in their uncertain world.

AGW to Waldo is a scientific educated guess at best because it contains what he may consider "pure mathematics and logic". But fundamentally there are no proofs in science.

You have to note the caprice in his statement that "It doesn't matter how many times we keep telling Simple that there are no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). "He tells us that there are no proofs in science but leaves himself a window by stating there could be proof with pure mathematics and logic."

So what is it Waldo, there are no proofs or there are some? We don't want to live in your uncertain world.

[Pliny]

Pliny... another case in point - another purveyor of nonsense... there is no separation flow between peer review, publishing and peer response. They are all part of the collective termed, "Peer Review". Again, science doesn't deal in proof. Pliny, the malcontent rebel

You've let the other threads drift, Waldo. Soon general interest will be lost in the expediency of mere political resolution as we get on with more important and pressing issues in our lives and on the planet, and start to look for real answers to the challenges before us.

[Pliny]

Pliny... another case in point - another purveyor of nonsense... there is no separation flow between peer review, publishing and peer response. They are all part of the collective termed, "Peer Review". Again, science doesn't deal in proof. Pliny, the malcontent rebel

Are you saying you have proof then?

[Keepitsimple]

Peer review involves publishing as well as having the paper reviewed. It's more stringent. So how can you say publishing is true scientific review ? Peer review highlights important questions about theories that are presented - for example, the latest publication by Eigil Friis-Christensen has important questions outstanding on it.

Global Warming, evolution and such theories can't really be "proven" as such anyway.

Before a paper of significance can be published in a reputable source, it must be peer-reviewed......but it's only after it gets published that it really starts to come under scrutiny with various critiques and peer-responses. In general though, most people refer to the peer-review process as that which takes place in order to get something published. From Wikipedia:

Pragmatically, peer review refers to the work done during the screening of submitted manuscripts and funding applications. This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and prevents the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals.

One of the challenges of Climate Science is that it's a relatively new field....so the number of Scientists with peer-review capabilities is somewhat limited and can lead to conflicts of interest, favouratism, and bias. From Wikipedia:

Allegations of bias and suppression

The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers always raises the possibility that the intermediators may serve as gatekeepers.[10] Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[11] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[12][13][14] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, it has been argued, ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[15]

Edited March 21, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

But fundamentally there are no proofs in science.

excellent Pliny - now you're catching on!

[waldo]

Pliny... another case in point - another purveyor of nonsense... there is no separation flow between peer review, publishing and peer response. They are all part of the collective termed, "Peer Review". Again, science doesn't deal in proof. Pliny, the malcontent rebel

You've let the other threads drift, Waldo. Soon general interest will be lost in the expediency of mere political resolution as we get on with more important and pressing issues in our lives and on the planet, and start to look for real answers to the challenges before us.

Pliny, don't you be worrying bout no climaty threads... there are more than enough MLW deniers hell bent on showing how either misinformed, how deceitful or how dishonest they are. They revel in it Pliny... why there's one particular enthusiast who regularly scours the tabloid and denier blog sources for any hint of inconsequential minutia and quite regularly starts another gem of a thread based on whatever shit he can manufacture... and then it's away we go again, Pliny. It's so self perpetuating - so don't you be worrying bout no climaty threads, hey Pliny! Besides, seeing that you've now taken to purposely bumping them, it's quite certain we won't need to worry about, as you say, "thread drift"

[waldo]

Before a paper of significance can be published in a reputable source, it must be peer-reviewed......but it's only after it gets published that it really starts to come under scrutiny with various critiques and peer-responses. In general though, most people refer to the peer-review process as that which takes place in order to get something published. From Wikipedia:

Simple, now the wiki based expert! Not to worry Simple, let's use your wiki source - the one you failed to link to... the one that states (from the exact same wiki source you cherry-picked from):

The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the peer review process. After being put to press, and after 'the ink is dry', the process of peer review continues as publications are read. Readers will often send letters to the editor of a journal, or correspond with the editor via an on-line journal club. In this way, all 'peers' may offer review and critique of published literature.

so... again... the "Peer Review" process encompasses the review, the publication and follow-up peer-response (if appropriate) - just like I keep sayin, Simple. On the other hand, perhaps you could advise of any journals that make it a practice to review and accept... without publishing!

One of the challenges of Climate Science is that it's a relatively new field....so the number of Scientists with peer-review capabilities is somewhat limited and can lead to conflicts of interest, favouratism, and bias. From Wikipedia:

peer review works quite well, thank you very much. As I said, it's not infallible; however, showcased problems are most definitely exceptions to the rule. Quite literally, hundreds of so-called skeptical papers regularly proceed through peer review... the real problem that deniers have with peer review is that their treasured pieces of whimsical denial never manage to stand the actual test of peer-response. Hence, they develop this fantasy that peer review is inherently biased against skeptical positions... far be it for a denier to actually entertain the fact that their denial treasures can't stand up to science.

[Pliny]

Simple, now the wiki based expert! Not to worry Simple, let's use your wiki source - the one you failed to link to... the one that states (from the exact same wiki source you cherry-picked from):

so... again... the "Peer Review" process encompasses the review, the publication and follow-up peer-response (if appropriate) - just like I keep sayin, Simple. On the other hand, perhaps you could advise of any journals that make it a practice to review and accept... without publishing!

peer review works quite well, thank you very much. As I said, it's not infallible; however, showcased problems are most definitely exceptions to the rule. Quite literally, hundreds of so-called skeptical papers regularly proceed through peer review... the real problem that deniers have with peer review is that their treasured pieces of whimsical denial never manage to stand the actual test of peer-response. Hence, they develop this fantasy that peer review is inherently biased against skeptical positions... far be it for a denier to actually entertain the fact that their denial treasures can't stand up to science.

Wait a sec, Waldo. As usual you are just blubbering on and on thinking you are addressing a post in the finest detail but really just pooh-poohing what anyone says that you disagree with.

In order to be taken seriously a paper that is published must be peer reviewed. Let's not mistake what occurs before a paper is published with what occurs after. The peer review process will determine if a paper is worthy of being published and is an expected standard for any serious study. As you well know, being published is not proof of anything and many more "peers" will review the already published peer reviewed study for a broadening of their own understanding. They, themselves, may have serious criticisms of an already published peer reviewed study based upon their own research or knowledge.

You insist AGW is fact, according to your personal estimation only, because there are no proofs in science, but you attempt to nullify everything presented, even by science itself, as an argument against AGW. You belittle all "scientists" or their work that disagrees with your pet theory as though science has proven your theory fact? Somewhat of an impossibility since "there are no proofs in science".

Like any skeptic you argue in circles. You ask for proof from others when you don't believe in proofs, so anything that is presented can obviously be discounted.

Yours is a very scary world of uncertainty as is the world of science itself. Do they just leave a hole to back themselves out of if their findings should be found flawed?

It's sort of like, to prove your own existence something else has to be there but that still isn't proof that you're there. It proves something else is there - maybe? We can't be sure.

I suppose you have made a decision. It may be wrong or it may be right - since no one can prove it but you are going to dive into the realm of clear certainty by making a decision to be certain even though it is impossible to be certain...wait I can be certain....but there can be no proof...certainty....impossible ...proof.....impossible...does not compute...does not compute.....error..error....

[waldo]

is there a translator in the house?

[Keepitsimple]

Just following up a bit more on Peer Review. As mentioned, pragmatically peer review is thought of as the process that leads to publication but as I also mentioned, the paper really only gains credibility with time - and the critiques and peer-responses of others who may come in contact with the paper. Ironically, this is exactly the process that climate alarmists want to short-circuit, and even more ironically, they call climate skeptics anti-scientific for wanting to follow this typical scientific dispute and replication process. Although long-known in the skeptic community, this has been one of the "revelations" revealed through the publication of the CRU emails:

"Studies are only accepted as likely correct over time after the community has tried as hard as it can to poke holes in the findings. Future studies will try to replicate the findings, or disprove them. As a result of criticism of the methodology, groups will test the findings in new ways that respond to methodological criticisms. It is the accretion of this work over time that solidifies confidence."

Edited March 22, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Just following up a bit more on Peer Review. As mentioned, pragmatically peer review is thought of as the process that leads to publication but as I also mentioned, the paper really only gains credibility with time - and the critiques and peer-responses of others who may come in contact with the paper. Ironically, this is exactly the process that climate alarmists want to short-circuit, and even more ironically, they call climate skeptics “anti-scientific” for wanting to follow this typical scientific dispute and replication process. Although long-known in the skeptic community, this has been one of the "revelations" revealed through the publication of the CRU emails:

so sad... Simple, each time your MIA hero Riverwind trotted this denier hackergate nonsense out, it was summarily trounced... you could give it another go, but remember... MLW search is your best friend! Even if one were to set aside the utter bullshit within the hacked emails concerning select instances of denier manufactured concern over peer review, deniers get real antsy when it's pointed out to them that, quite literally, hundreds of so-called skeptic papers get published through standard peer-review every year. Somehow that never gains denier consideration when fostering their lies about peer-review bias... somehow... deniers can't come to terms with actual science trumping it's skeptic challenges. You can emphasize your "pragmatic" as often as you'd like... in some back-peddling attempt to save face... the basic fact remains that the "Peer Review" process encompasses the actual review, the review acceptance (or rejection), publication (if accepted) and peer-response (if appropriate). Remember Simple, MLW search is your best friend in your presuming to fabricate hackergate based peer-review bias.

as an aside, we've been missing the peer-review bias and related conspiracy angles that Riverwind so promoted... will you be taking up the charge on these particular manufactured doubt/uncertainty points?

[waldo]

backdown? What backdown?

we're now seeing scientists taking actual measures to push back on the fabrications of lazy dishonest journalism... this example is particularly noteworthy since it involves Shady's favourite go-to British tabloid journalist, Jonathan Leake... the worst of the worst!

Forests expert officially complains about 'distorted' Sunday Times article

Lewis said: "There is currently a war of disinformation about climate change-related science, and my complaint can hopefully let journalists in the front line of this war know that there are potential repercussions if they publish misleading stories. The public deserve careful and accurate science reporting." ...

Lewis also complains that the Sunday Times used several quotes from him in the piece to support the assertion that the IPCC report had made a false claim. "Despite repeatedly stating to the Sunday Times that there is no problem with the sentence in the IPCC report, except the reference."

Lewis said he made the PCC complaint, which runs to 31 pages, only after other attempts to raise his concerns failed. A letter to the Sunday Times, he says, was not acknowledged or printed, and a comment he posted on its website was deleted.

[Keepitsimple]

backdown? What backdown?

we're now seeing scientists taking actual measures to push back on the fabrications of lazy dishonest journalism...

The Alarmist spinmeisters have a lot of work ahead of them.....

It has been tough to keep up with all the bad news for global warming alarmists. We're on the edge of our chair, waiting for the next shoe to drop. This has been an Imelda Marcos kind of season for shoe-dropping about global warming.

At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.

ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

Fold this column up and lay it next to your napkin the next time you have Al Gore or his ilk to dine. It should make interesting after-dinner conversation.

Link: http://www.ocregister.com/common/printer/view.php?db=ocregister&id=234092

[waldo]

Simple, how desperate are you - really?

a few RC links... just for you: IPCC errors: facts and spin ..... Whatevergate ..... and, of course, let's not forget this MLW post that catalogs how many of those dishonest fabrications from the British tabloid press actually started - you know, from Shady's go-to tabloid source - Jonathan Leake.

unfortunately for you and your denier crowd, the backlash is building. Scientists are mobilizing on various fronts to push back against the outright lies and distortions being principally fronted by lazy dishonest journalists. My preceding post to your desperation ploy is a case example, where a scientist responds with a formal 31 page complaint outlining the purposeful falsifications and fabrications of, in this particular case, Shady's go-to British tabloid source, Jonathan Leake.

[Keepitsimple]

Simple, how desperate are you - really?

a few RC links... just for you: IPCC errors: facts and spin ..... Whatevergate ..... and, of course, let's not forget this MLW post that catalogs how many of those dishonest fabrications from the British tabloid press actually started - you know, from Shady's go-to tabloid source - Jonathan Leake.

unfortunately for you and your denier crowd, the backlash is building. Scientists are mobilizing on various fronts to push back against the outright lies and distortions being principally fronted by lazy dishonest journalists. My preceding post to your desperation ploy is a case example, where a scientist responds with a formal 31 page complaint outlining the purposeful falsifications and fabrications of, in this particular case, Shady's go-to British tabloid source, Jonathan Leake.

31 pages to say that it was correct to "suggest" that up to 40% of the Amazon Rainforest.......in other words, he's saying it's plausible - not very likely of course but plausible. That's the problem with many of these Alarmist statements - if this, if that, if this....then maybe we could get this. Garbage....it's just as likely - more likely - that NOTHING will happen. This guy should be embarrassed to use so many trees in trying to defend what was clearly a sloppy and misleading entry in AR4. As I said, your spinmeisters will be quite busy.....

Lewis said he was contacted by the Sunday Times before the article was published and told them the IPCC's statement was "poorly written and bizarrely referenced, but basically correct". He added that "there is a wealth of scientific evidence suggesting that the Amazon is vulnerable to reductions in rainfall". He also sent the newspaper several scientific papers that supported the claim, but were not cited by that section of the IPCC report.

[waldo]

31 pages to say that it was correct to "suggest" that up to 40% of the Amazon Rainforest.......in other words, he's saying it's plausible - not very likely of course but plausible. That's the problem with many of these Alarmist statements - if this, if that, if this....then maybe we could get this. Garbage....it's just as likely - more likely - that NOTHING will happen. This guy should be embarrassed to use so many trees in trying to defend what was clearly a sloppy and misleading entry in AR4. As I said, your spinmeisters will be quite busy.....

congratulations! Your fabrication approaches that of the dishonest journalists at the heart of another trumped up denial fabrication. That 31 page complaint lays down the facts, on the IPCC statement, on the newspaper fabrications and on the dishonesty of the journalists involved.

here we see another case of the denial crew beating the bushes for WG2 statements they believe they can attack with dishonesty and impunity... in this case however, scientists are fighting back. I gave you one example, the complaint itself. We also have this letter from 19 active scientists engaged in Amazon forest research, climate and/or fire:

Reductions in rainfall can affect Amazon forests by increasing tree mortality, but also by increasing their susceptibility to fire. The initial fire kills trees, increasing the likelihood of subsequent fires for years afterwards in a vicious positive feedback loop. In 2005, more than 2000 km2 of forest caught fire in the tiny state of Acre alone. During the severe drought of 1998, approximately 40,000 km2 of forest caught fire. These are indisputable facts. It is important to remember that these droughts are part of the current Amazon climate regime. If climate change increases the frequency, severity or duration of these episodic droughts, then increased forest fire and tree mortality and reduced river flow are the likely results.

.

.

The point is, however, that the statement made by the IPCC about the sensitivity of Amazon forests drought was consistent with our knowledge at that time, and has been reinforced by new studies.

of course, the willful, wanton damage has already been done by denialists and dishonest journalists... it's all about getting it out there, regardless of how inaccurate, how distorted, or how fabricated their stories are. The real difference this time is that scientists are beginning to stand-up and fight back... in line with this thread title, "no backdown"!

[Keepitsimple]

congratulations! Your fabrication approaches that of the dishonest journalists at the heart of another trumped up denial fabrication. That 31 page complaint lays down the facts, on the IPCC statement, on the newspaper fabrications and on the dishonesty of the journalists involved.

"!

If there are more droughts and less rainfall - how does that reconcile with the fact that IPCC models say that as the temperature rises, there will be more rainfall - not less. Soundsw like another Alarmist "Heads I win, Tails you lose".

Climate models and satellite observations both indicate the total amount of water in the atmosphere will increase substantially due to global warming at a rate of 7% K-1. However, the climate models predict global precipitation will increase at a much slower rate of 1-3% K-1. A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming. Rather, the observations suggest that precipitation and total atmospheric water have increased at about the same rate over the last two decades.

Link: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1140746v1?maxtoshow=%26HITS=10%26hits=10%26RESULTFORMAT=%26fulltext=Ricciardulli%26searchid=1%26FIRSTINDEX=0%26resourcetype=HWCIT

Edited March 25, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

If there are more droughts and less rainfall - how does that reconcile with the fact that IPCC models say that as the temperature rises, there will be more rainfall - not less. Soundsw like another Alarmist "Heads I win, Tails you lose".

imagine, just imagine... Simple links to an actual scientific paper! Is it your premise that global precipitation levels are equal everywhere... that there are no localized patterns/causes that influence degrees of precipitation across global regions? Is temperature warming equally across the world... or... are there areas that have shown increased warming over others (hint: think latitudes )

[Keepitsimple]

imagine, just imagine... Simple links to an actual scientific paper! Is it your premise that global precipitation levels are equal everywhere... that there are no localized patterns/causes that influence degrees of precipitation across global regions? Is temperature warming equally across the world... or... are there areas that have shown increased warming over others (hint: think latitudes )

Like I said....it's heads I win, tails you lose. Everything - every possibility - is because of Global Warming - snow, no snow, rain, no rain, colder, hotter. It doesn't matter. Is it any wonder scepticism is rapidly on the rise? Notice how the "scientific" paper I linked to disputes how the models have estimated precipitation? It doesn't mattter who's right...it's just another example of an AGW component that is not fully understood.....even with the 31 page report of the Alarmist trying to spin the IPCC AmazonGate fiasco.

However, the climate models predict global precipitation will increase at a much slower rate of 1-3% K-1. A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming. Rather, the observations suggest that precipitation and total atmospheric water have increased at about the same rate over the last two decades.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Keepitsimple