Global Warming backdown

[Michael Hardner]

Good for you, MG, for asking for scientific proof rather than a blog or video.

Just for you, I will find something.

This may be it: see the diagram at the top of 5668

https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/droyer/web/PhanCO2%28GCA%29.pdf

I was referred to it in this discussion: http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/4/w5hs4KVeiAU

[Wild Bill]

See, for someone first learning about global warming, I would start from a completely different direction. Before one jumps into data, results, and studies, it is important to understand the underlying physical principles. Let me give a brief summary of the mechanisms underlying the atmospheric greenhouse effect:

You limned the "barebones" mechanism but I think that you really have to include feedback mechanisms to grasp how things really work. I am no expert on climate change but as an electronics tech I have to understand the principles of feedback in a system.

To give simple examples, if you stick a microphone in front of a speaker you will create positive feedback, where the output signal will be fed back into the system's own input. It will then be re-amplified, picked up again to be sent back and amplified again and again until the system breaks into oscillation. You get a full volume, uncontrollable squeal.

However, this happens only if the input wave and the output wave are in phase. If you looked at the waves on an oscilloscope you would see the peaks and troughs of the input wave matching up to those of the output wave, the only difference being that the output wave is much larger.

If the waves are OUT of phase, the feedback is said to be negative! This has the effect of canceling out the input wave. If you only use a little, you can cancel out negative aspects to the signal, like distortion and such, while still having more than enough usable signal at the output. Negative feedback can be used to adjust the volume or maintain the purity of the wave. In effect, it is a way of controlling the system.

What does this have to do with climate? The Earth's ecosphere is also a system that has positive and negative feedback things happening. When people suggest that CO2 traps heat and can lead to a runaway effect they are describing a positive feedback loop. This ignores MANY other loops, including negative ones that may partially or even completely cancel the effect of excess CO2.

For instance, warmer temperatures can increase the amount of water vapor in the air. Unlike CO2, water vapor DOES block sunlight before it can reach and warm the ground! This could or can theoretically negate the effect of excess CO2.

I'm not versed enough to argue about all the various climate feedback loops but I know enough that you can't ignore them or pick and choose only those that support your arguments. Feedback loops are how we control virtually any system. One of the simplest would be a governor on a motor so that it maintains a constant speed. The Earth has evolved feedback systems of its own over the eons and it would be silly to think that we have a system that could at any time be kicked over the precipice and break into a squealing howl, frying us all! Mother Nature has mechanisms to maintain her status quo, that tend to fight major changes, in either direction.

SHE knows what she's doing and frankly, she doesn't give a damn about us or how we think she does it!

Edited February 25, 2010 by Wild Bill

[wyly]

I'm not versed enough to argue about all the various climate feedback loops but I know enough that you can't ignore them or pick and choose only those that support your arguments. Feedback loops are how we control virtually any system. One of the simplest would be a governor on a motor so that it maintains a constant speed. The Earth has evolved feedback systems of its own over the eons and it would be silly to think that we have a system that could at any time be kicked over the precipice and break into a squealing howl, frying us all! Mother Nature has mechanisms to maintain her status quo, that tend to fight major changes, in either direction.

temperature is relative...on a global scale temp is virtually constant and flat, climate change is insignificant... but on a biologocial scale any change can have dramatic effects, complex life has a narrow band of acceptable tolorances...a 10c increase or decrease is insignificant zero effect for the planet but for life on the planet it's survival or mass extinctions...

SHE knows what she's doing and frankly, she doesn't give a damn about us or how we think she does it!

she is an inanimate object and knows nothing, there is no right or wrong or master plan...if we change our environment to a greenhouse the earth will do nothing to stop it or regulate it.. it's all action and reaction there is no magical balancing system at play...

[Wild Bill]

temperature is relative...on a global scale temp is virtually constant and flat, climate change is insignificant... but on a biologocial scale any change can have dramatic effects, complex life has a narrow band of acceptable tolorances...a 10c increase or decrease is insignificant zero effect for the planet but for life on the planet it's survival or mass extinctions...

she is an inanimate object and knows nothing, there is no right or wrong or master plan...if we change our environment to a greenhouse the earth will do nothing to stop it or regulate it.. it's all action and reaction there is no magical balancing system at play...

Could you be a bit more explicit? Are you saying that there AREN'T any negative feedback loops in the Earth's ecosystem? Nothing that works to maintain a status quo?

Are you claiming that ANY factors introduced by Man as he lives on the planet must be unopposed by the eco-system and have a free rein in changing the climate? And that it must always be significant and certainly, negative?

What has stating that a big enough change in temperature would be disastrous for present life got to do with how the eco-system works? A piano on your head is hazardous to your health as well but it still would be a non sequitur to the discussion!

You're right that Mother Nature is not an intelligent force but to say that "the earth will do nothing to stop it or regulate it" is an assumption you must defend. For your premise to be true there must be NO feedback factors! I'm glad it's you and not me who must defend that position.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Wild Bill

[waldo]

Could you be a bit more explicit? Are you saying that there AREN'T any negative feedback loops in the Earth's ecosystem? Nothing that works to maintain a status quo?

Are you claiming that ANY factor's introduced by Man as he lives on the planet must be unopposed by the eco-system and have a free rein in changing the climate? And that it must always be significant and certainly, negative?

in your electronics technician mindset, what effect can excessive heat or current have on components within your electronic feedback loop mechanisms?

of course... most climate scientists accept the anthropogenic influence on the carbon cycle as the main driver affecting climate change these recent past 50 years. The natural balance within the carbon cycle is... out of balance given AGW climate change. The past historical CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was somewhat constant @ 280ppm. Mankind's influence has significantly altered the carbon cycle - taking it out of balance - bringing us to today's CO2 concentration level of ~388ppm

[waldo]

Waldo, you are obviously a believer in AGW. Currently i'm undecided on the whole debate as i'm currently educating myself on the issue. The biggest thing for me about whether AGW is real or not is whether there is a clear correlation between CO2 gases in the atmosphere and global temperature. Do you (or anyone on these boards) know of any web links (with graphs etc.) showing clear correlation between the amount of CO2 gases in the atmosphere and global temperature over the last few thousand years, or at least the last thousand years? I would sincerely appreciate it.

for someone just entering the subject, Bonam's suggestion is sound in first seeking out a more rounded, somewhat generalized view/assessment, whether it be the physical science basis itself, impact extensions, technological solutions, policy implications, etc. Google is your friend; however, I believe this doc provides a good current and topical accounting, albeit U.S. slanted in terms of adaption, policy, etc.... and does have a short piece covering your direct questioning on CO2/temperature correlation. I've previously posted a link to this recent AGU presentation - CO2 in Earth's Climate History - of course, to someone just beginning to broach the subject, the science emphasis may be somewhat challenging... it's a long video, but well worth the time (accepting to the style of the presenter and the format)

[eyeball]

...most climate scientists accept the anthropogenic influence on the carbon cycle as the main driver affecting climate change these recent past 50 years.

Given my own layman's knowledge about climate science, that's pretty much been the deciding factor in my having accepted this. The theory that most scientists who accept AGW only do so because their livelihoods depend on it has gained more traction with me however. I see no reason not to suspect that most scientists that depend on funding for their livelihoods also say whatever it takes to stay employed. Given the trillions of dollars that are stake, schools of thought on things like capitalism, geopolitics and national security seem particularly vulnerable to things like publication bias, data-fudging and corruption.

I've long suspected the many government fisheries and forestry scientists and economists who's finding's have influenced my livelihood over the years are corrupt (I subscribe to a legal opinion I read that government corruption is best defined as secrecy with an intent to deceive). Plenty of these have cited climate change and even AGW in the course of explaining the basis for some of the decisions they've made.

Above all else though I think the moral imperative to keep producing is pushing me towards concluding I probably won't be able to afford to give a shit one way or the other. If we're the biological equivalent of an asteroid's impact that's just the way the biological cookie crumbles. We're living evidence of evolution at work and what's happening as a result of what we're doing is completely natural, so to speak.

[Shady]

most climate scientists accept the anthropogenic influence on the carbon cycle as the main driver affecting climate change these recent past 50 years.

Actually, most climate scientists don't accept that theory. And the main driver of so-called climate change, is that the climate is always changing to some degree. The climate isn't static. It's constantly changing, and has been for thousands of years, getting warmer, then colder, then warmer, then colder. The medieval warming period wasn't due to all of their SUVs and factories. And Greenland wasn't called Greenland because it was a giant chunk of ice. It was a temperate climate, filled with trees and green grass. And that wasn't because of SUVs and factories either.

Don't let these AGW true-believer/Jim Jones' types fool you.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Actually, most climate scientists don't accept that theory.

Really what do most climate scientists think?

And the main driver of so-called climate change, is that the climate is always changing to some degree.

Uh, that's a bit like saying the main driver of the wind is the wind. The wind has always been blowing. There are hundreds of factors that cause the climate.

The climate isn't static.

Has anyone said it was? No.

It's constantly changing, and has been for thousands of years, getting warmer, then colder, then warmer, then colder.

Again no one has said it hasn't.

The medieval warming period wasn't due to all of their SUVs and factories.

Prove it wasn't just a local event.

And Greenland wasn't called Greenland because it was a giant chunk of ice. It was a temperate climate, filled with trees and green grass. And that wasn't because of SUVs and factories either.

:lol:

If it was it would be underwater.

The bedrock in the center of Greenland has been pressed below sea level by the weight of the ice sheet. Thus, if the ice melted, much of central Greenland would be under water.[7]

Legend says Greenland was called Greenland to try to fool people into moving there. The more likely explaination is a derivation of Engronelant or Gruntland.

I will admit It could be that parts of Greenland may have been more green due to local phenomenon. Greenland hasn't been green (except for brief periods in the summer in the southren portion) for 110000 years at least probably more. Greenland is now covered 80% by ice.

My link

My link

Edited February 26, 2010 by TrueMetis

[waldo]

Actually, most climate scientists don't accept that theory.

Don't let these AGW true-believer/Jim Jones' types fool you.

that's right Shady... let's put your completely laughable "Oregon Petition", compiled and managed by the rubber-boot ploughboys from backwatersville Oregon, up against this: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Reports & Statements supporting the theory of AGW Climate Change:

Table of Contents

-

Synthesis reports

o Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007

o U.S. Global Change Research Program

o Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

-

Statements by concurring organizations

o

Academies of Science

- European Academy of Sciences and Arts

- InterAcademy Council

- International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

- Joint science academies' statements

- Network of African Science Academies

- Royal Society of New Zealand

- Polish Academy of Sciences

- National Research Council (US)

o

General science

- American Association for the Advancement of Science

- European Science Foundation

- Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

o

Earth sciences

- American Geophysical Union

- European Federation of Geologists

- European Geosciences Union

- Geological Society of America

- Geological Society of Australia

- International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

- National Association of Geoscience Teachers

- Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London

o

Meteorology and oceanography

- American Meteorological Society

- Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

- Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

- Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

- Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

- World Meteorological Organization

o

Paleoclimatology

- American Quaternary Association

- International Union for Quaternary Research

o

Biology and life sciences

- American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians

- American Society for Microbiology

- Australian Coral Reef Society

- Institute of Biology (UK)

- Society of American Foresters

- The Wildlife Society (international)

o

Human health

- American Academy of Paediatrics

- American College of Preventive Medicine

- American Medical Association

- American Public Health Association

- Australian Medical Association

- World Federation of Public Health Associations

- World Health Organization

o

Miscellaneous

- American Astronomical Society

- American Chemical Society

- American Institute of Physics

- American Physical Society

- American Statistical Association

- Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

- International Association for Great Lakes Research

-

Scientific consensus

-

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

o Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009

o STATS, 2007

o Oreskes, 2004

o Bray and von Storch, 2003

o Survey of U.S. state climatologists, 1997

o Bray and von Storch, 1996

o Older surveys of scientists

And the main driver of so-called climate change, is that the climate is always changing to some degree.

Oh my! Shady pronounces... "The main driver of climate change is..... change"

[wyly]

Could you be a bit more explicit? Are you saying that there AREN'T any negative feedback loops in the Earth's ecosystem? Nothing that works to maintain a status quo?

Are you claiming that ANY factors introduced by Man as he lives on the planet must be unopposed by the eco-system and have a free rein in changing the climate? And that it must always be significant and certainly, negative?

What has stating that a big enough change in temperature would be disastrous for present life got to do with how the eco-system works? A piano on your head is hazardous to your health as well but it still would be a non sequitur to the discussion!

You're right that Mother Nature is not an intelligent force but to say that "the earth will do nothing to stop it or regulate it" is an assumption you must defend. For your premise to be true there must be NO feedback factors! I'm glad it's you and not me who must defend that position.

there is no magical balancing system at play, the earth was at one time a hostile environment for life that we have an environment now that we exist in now does not indicate that is the norm...nor does it mean that it will return to as it is if it changes dramatically...Mars has evidence of at one time having running water, Venus is also suspected of having H20 at one time before a run away GH effect changed it permanently...

Edited February 26, 2010 by wyly

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, most climate scientists don't accept that theory. And the main driver of so-called climate change, is that the climate is always changing to some degree. The climate isn't static. It's constantly changing, and has been for thousands of years, getting warmer, then colder, then warmer, then colder. The medieval warming period wasn't due to all of their SUVs and factories.

There are other factors that could have caused a MWP, though. Radioactive activity and CO2 are major drivers to change, that much is known.

[Wild Bill]

there is no magical balancing system at play,

Geez, you keep sounding like somebody I voted for!

Are there negative feedback loops that try to maintain the status quo? I'll grant you that the capacity of such loops can be exceeded. Those would be separate arguments depending on the specific examples.

Let's stick to my question. Please don't pull a politician on me.

Loops? Yes or No?

[Shady]

The AGW true-believers are feeling even more heat! (pun intended)

This from the Institute of Physics:

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

[Oleg Bach]

Nope. It's far from the first snow in Toronto this winter. Not sure where you have been.

Hiding under a warm rock.

[Keepitsimple]

Met Office to re-examine 150 years of temperature data in the wake of the Climategate Scandal

Last updated at 10:33 AM on 25th February 2010

Temperature records dating back more than 150 years are to be re-examined by the Met Office because public belief in global warming has plummeted.

The re-analysis, which was approved at a conference in Turkey this week, comes after the climate change email scandal which dealt a severe blow to the credibility of environmental science.

The Met Office says that the review is 'timely' and insists it does not expect to come to a different conclusion about the progress of climate change.

The Met Office's reassessment of its data comes amid growing public scepticism towards global warming

But the reassessment, which will take an international group of experts three years to complete, will be seen as a tacit admission that previous reports have been tainted by the association with the University of East Anglia's controversial Climatic Research Unit.

Since the leak of more than 1,000 emails and documents from the unit in November, belief in global warming has fallen from 41 per cent to 26 per cent.

The entire claim that we are experiencing unprecedented warming, primarily caused by Co2 emanating from the use of fossil fuels is predicated on the fact that temperatures around the world are in fact rising.......and that depends on the accurate measurement of land and ocean temperatures. The UK's MET office is undertaking a three year project to reexamine temperature records of the past 150 years. Here's only a few tidbits that have come to light recently:

1) In 1990, the number of temperature stations used in calculating Global Average Temperature (GAT) went from over 6000 to under 1500.

2) Russia lodged a complaint with the Met office that only 25% of their stations were included - omitting 40% of Russian territory. Russia says most of the omitted stations showed little or no warming.

3) Although station coverage is wide, only 3 stations are used to cover all of Canada's vast northern territories.

4) Many stations are located within Urban centres. While it is acknowledged in the "calculation" that there is a heat island effect, that is supposedly offset by "adjustments". How can you have an adjustment for the heat-island effect which likely varies from station to station? Why even use Urban stations at all - except to demonstrate that there may be localized warming caused by urbanization? Why not use rural stations exclusively, unaffected by human activity?

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

Edited February 27, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[eyeball]

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation.

This should apply to any and every field of science that relies on public funding and who's findings influence and shape public policy.

I'm rather surprised that we don't have laws to prevent data fudging and publication bias. The need for public confidence is just too critical to leave unprotected to abuse like this.

If the authorities told us an asteroid was coming and we needed to divert a couple of trillion dollars away from other things to save ourselves I suspect many people would just roll their eyes and tell them to go bite something.

[waldo]

The AGW true-believers are feeling even more heat! (pun intended)

This from the Institute of Physics:

ok... where's this coming from Shady? That's right waldo, which denier blog is fronting this one for Shady? Check the usual suspects... is it... nope... is it... nope - not that on either... oh, there it is! Shady, does your link reference a bonafide scientific organization, say, like the American Institute of Physics? Or... is it from one of those organizations linked "behind the global push to revive the nuclear power and and nuclear weapons industry"?

the U.K. based Spinwatch effort has clearly labeled your links reference, the "Institute of Physics", for what it truly is. Yes! An impressive makeup list within it's described "Business Affiliates" network. Clearly, your favoured "Institute of Physics" is a real hotbed of science

[waldo]

Simple, the Met Office re-analysis will simply squash another denier outlet... it's interesting to see you purposely cut off your quote to exclude the article's Met Office rep comment, as minimal as it was:

A Met Office spokesman denied the re-analysis had been triggered by doubts over the University of East Anglia's contribution.

He said: 'Scientists are always looking and trying to get the best results. Techniques change all the time and science is always evolving. We don't expect it to come up with any different results to what is already there.'

... certainly, one can expect this flap pushed a 'reanalysis' forward - the public's perceived confidence, is a consideration, after all. However, Met Office commentary on the expected outcome of the analysis has been most consistent.

you keep harping on this station dropout issue - of course, Anthony Watts is one of your go-to guys. NOAA has previously offered official comment on aspects of Watts work... in other MLW threads I've posted links to NOAA study/review that have rebuked Watts - using Watts' own supplied/available data. In adding to that, I'll provide you a link to a blog, one I normally wouldn't presume to give any credence to... the fact this blogger (self-described as a 'lukewarmer') offers rebuke to your claim/inferences about the impact of reduced surface stations, is a sweet commentary to your continued parroting of Watts' disinformation campaign. This blogger is most certainly a favoured skeptic outlet... she is most definitely not a proponent of AGW climate change. That being said, she links to two other blog sites and comments accordingly... one blog site, from that of prominent skeptic Roy Spencer, who helps to maintain one of the two global satellite records; the other blog site from a prominent AGW proponent who is active in climate science/statistics. Both linked sites offer preliminary review/comment on the reduction of surface stations and the impact it has had on the surface temperature records... as in, the reduction in stations does not appear to have biased the surface temperature record - at all. Given Shady's intellectual dishonesty focus on Phil Jones, I particularly like Roy Spencer's quote:

But at face value, this plot seems to indicate that the rapid decrease in the number of stations included in the GHCN database in recent years has not caused a spurious warming trend in the Jones dataset — at least not since 1986

this linked article from the OSS Foundation also provides a rather nice summary of the fabrication effort Ross McIntyre has provided in aiding/abetting the crap being spread by Watts & D'Aleo

you also keep harping on UHI (Urban Heat Island) effect... we've beat this one up pretty good in the past here through various MLW threads. I can either re-post you relevant MLW links, or you could actually put up something to show how UHI is being improperly managed. I can re-post links to actual scientific studies involving UHI... or you could actually put up something other than your opinion (parroted as it is).

There are no skeptics within the IPCC - they are simply not allowed.

why should anyone bother to repeat something you refuse to acknowledge... in any case, as stated many times previously, the IPCC reports give a complete accounting of the science... there are hundreds, literally hundreds of references to skeptic paper/positions within IPCC reports. Again... the IPCC is a process... it's a presentation of the state of the science. There is no such thing as an "IPCC scientist".

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.

that's right Simple, each of those independently maintained and separately processed surface temperature datasets have all, somehow, managed to present a consistent display of warming. Separate organizations, separate methodologies, separate processing... and separate selection of stations/data. Why it must be collusion, hey Simple? NASA, NOAA, the MET Office, JMA, etc., they're all in on it!

what about the satellite recordings and the warming presentation they provide, Simple... what about that inconvenient satellite truth - hey Simple? But is that it Simple... surface temperature and satellite temperature records... is that all there is Simple? Is that all there is to substantiate warming?

[Shady]

NASA, NOAA, the MET Office, JMA, etc., they're all in on it!

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

NASA has admitted to a data error that skewed temperatures since 2000.

According to the new estimates, the hottest year since 1880 is 1934 instead of 1998, which is now second. 1921 is now third.

Link

[Keepitsimple]

Again... the IPCC is a process... it's a presentation of the state of the science. There is no such thing as an "IPCC scientist".

Finally, you've said something that I agree with......non-scientists presenting the "state of the science". Hopefully, a lightbulb will go off in your head and you'll start to realize why so many people are skeptical of the IPCC......but not you Waldo.....you put all of your zeolotry belief in these non-scientists. Wake up Waldo - they are not evil but golly, you can't believe the complete accuracy of every conclusion that they draw. Can you?

Edited February 28, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

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

well, blow me..... down Shady! That NASA data correction had a most insignificant effect on the global temperature record... on the order of one-thousandth of a degree... making the corrected and uncorrected temperature presentations indistinguishable from each other. NASA also maintains it had no effect on it's GISTEMP rankings of global temperature. Another Shady non-issue... distortion... fabrication!

but it is certainly heartening to realize you've picked up the mantle from your MIA posse leader, Riverwind. We needed someone... someone like you, Shady... to reinforce the whole denier conspiracy theme that Riverwind carried and promoted so well. Good on ya, Shady - great teamwork on your part!

[waldo]

There are no skeptics within the IPCC - they are simply not allowed.

why should anyone bother to repeat something you refuse to acknowledge... in any case, as stated many times previously, the IPCC reports give a complete accounting of the science... there are hundreds, literally hundreds of references to skeptic paper/positions within IPCC reports. Again... the IPCC is a process... it's a presentation of the state of the science. There is no such thing as an "IPCC scientist".

Finally, you've said something that I agree with......non-scientists presenting the "state of the science". Hopefully, a lightbulb will go off in your head and you'll start to realize why so many people are skeptical of the IPCC......but not you Waldo.....you put all of your zeolotry belief in these non-scientists. Wake up Waldo - they are not evil but golly, you can't believe the complete accuracy of every conclusion that they draw. Can you?

say what? Simple, your word/meaning twist is matched only by your own 'twisting in the wind'... as highlighted for you previously, there are less than a dozen full time IPCC employees - there is no such thing as an "IPCC scientist"... the IPCC, as a body, practices no science, it does no research. There are thousands of individuals that directly or indirectly contribute to the iterative IPCC reports --- they are most certainly scientists. I've previously provided link/quote reference to practices and procedures followed by the IPCC - practices and procedures that included detailed accounts of how scientists contribute, directly or indirectly, to the iterative IPCC process that brings forward it's reports... perhaps you could step up and actually provide support for your claim that, as you say, "non-scientists" are presenting the, as you say, "state of the science" within the iterative IPCC reports. Why not do that Simple, rather than presume to play silly bugger by twisting words/meaning?

[Keepitsimple]

... perhaps you could step up and actually provide support for your claim that, as you say, "non-scientists" are presenting the, as you say, "state of the science" within the iterative IPCC reports. Why not do that Simple, rather than presume to play silly bugger by twisting words/meaning?

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?

The Summary for policymakers (SPM) is a summary of the IPCC reports intended to aid policymakers. The content is determined by the scientists, but the form is approved line by line by governments.[1] Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy.

Several authors, including some scientists whose work was cited in the Technical Summary, claim that the SPM doesn't represent the science correctly

Scientists determine what can said, but the governments determine how it can best be said. ... The IPCC process is dependent on the good will of the participants in producing a balanced assessment. However, in Shanghai, it appeared that there were attempts to blunt, and perhaps obfuscate, the messages in the report. ... In spite of these trials and tribulations, the result is a reasonably balanced consensus summary. ...

The Science and Environmental Policy Project conducted a survey of IPCC scientific contributors and reviewers; we found that about half did not support the Policymakers' Summary. Parallel surveys by the Gallup organization and even by Greenpeace International produced similar results.[4]However, Fred Singer's allegations about "surveys by the Gallup organization and by Greenpeace International" cannot be verified.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Summary_for_Policymakers

Edited February 28, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Oleg Bach]

There is no global climate disturbance..and the floors do not need sweeping if you turn the lights out.