News UN to Say It Overstated AIDS Cases.

[Evo]

I'm not going to speak for the state of the science and the sizes of error bars on various estimates. I don't know enough about the field. But I will not stand for incorrect rebuttals of the science performed by non-specialists (as we have had here and in about a dozen other threads).

Also, we don't really know anything for "certain", in any field of science. While the error bars on the data are smaller in more well-established fields, they are larger in many areas of climate science. That does not mean that we can not aassign a confidence interval to the estimates that are made.

Ok, because I value your opinion. Let's say you are right about the level of human effects. What next? What is the right thing to do? Do you feel confident that we know enough to make drastic world wide climate changing decisions?

I'm trying to understand what you and Skyhunter expect should be done.

 

[Gokul43201]

Not my figures. I used the figures Skyhunter provided and the maths didn't add up.

Sky didn't provide the units. If you were aware of the roughly factor of 4 multiplier between the molar masses of C and CO2 (or between carbon equivalents and CO2 volumes) and knew the approximate human production rate, you'd have immediately been able to convert the units and the math would have made sense. I spend the tiniest fraction of my time thinking about climate science (all of it when threads like this pop up), and it struck me immediately.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm trying to understand what you and Skyhunter expect should be done.

I have little opinion on how good the science is and whether the IPCC is doing a fair job of communicating it to us (if anything, I'm skeptical on both counts). I've also got no opinion on what should be done if what they say is true. I have not expressed any opinion on these matters.

I do however, have an opinion on non-specialists rebutting the work of career scientists, particularly when the rebuttal is mired in misconception and misinformation. I do have an opinion on one-line arguments (like "Does NOT initiate the warming therefore AGW theory must be wrong because it works on the premise CO2 DOES initiate the warming.") that claim to debunk the primary findings of hundreds of scientists. My opinion is that such arguments are essentially crackpottery and do not belong here. And that's all I'm tackling in my posts.

 

[Art]

I have little opinion on whether the science is good and whether the IPCC is doing a fair job of communicating it to us (if anything, I'm skeptical on both counts). I've also got no opinion on what should be done if what they say is true.

I do however, have an opinion on non-specialists rebutting the work of career scientists, particularly when the rebuttal is mired in misconception and misinformation. I do have an opinion on one-line arguments (like "Does NOT initiate the warming therefore AGW theory must be wrong because it works on the premise CO2 DOES initiate the warming.") that claim to debunk the primary findings of hundreds of scientists. My opinion is that such arguments are essentially crackpottery and do not belong here.

Your nose out of joint because your statistical consensus comment was shown to be wrong or something? Or is there another reason you are producing these strawmen?

I wasn't debating with hundreds of scientists I was pointing out a fundamental logical fallacy in Skyhunter's argument as you well know.

Oh and btw when in the same sentence Skyhunter talked of CO2 and 6-7 Gt I do not think it was unreasonable of me to assume he was still talking about CO2 .

 

[mjsd]

If you want a thread specific to AIDS then why not start one?

I may be wrong but I read it as the originator of this thread wanted to highlight UN mendacity which seems a perfectly reasonable topic for discussion.

Mmm... so less money for AIDS program but more effort on AGW was the potential outcome of this latest admittance of past gross overestimation?

I may be a bit naive about AIDS or AGW but one thing is clear:
the people who are going to lose out amid these political storms are probably AIDS sufferers in Africa, AND small countries in low-lying areas (if AGW is somewhat true). It will probably not affect us just yet, so perhaps the mentality of those self-centered ppl is that,
"well, if it is not going to affect us soon, why worry yet?! It is not *our* problem really, so why waste resources to fix others' problems?!" OR "problem is not that bad, even if it is, we can only do so much, so why bother?!"

People often just care about their own well-being, but not realising that sometimes your well-being may transpire into others' suffering.

 

[Evo]

I have little opinion on how good the science is and whether the IPCC is doing a fair job of communicating it to us (if anything, I'm skeptical on both counts). I've also got no opinion on what should be done if what they say is true. I have not expressed any opinion on these matters.

I do however, have an opinion on non-specialists rebutting the work of career scientists, particularly when the rebuttal is mired in misconception and misinformation. I do have an opinion on one-line arguments (like "Does NOT initiate the warming therefore AGW theory must be wrong because it works on the premise CO2 DOES initiate the warming.") that claim to debunk the primary findings of hundreds of scientists. My opinion is that such arguments are essentially crackpottery and do not belong here. And that's all I'm tackling in my posts.

Fair enough, although there are climate scientists with very good data that is not being considered because it is not politically correct, and this concerns me. Shouldn't we be looking at all the data, even if it goes against what we want to believe?

Personally I'm more concerned about the human desire to take things into their own hands and go charging ahead without really knowing what they are doing and oblivious of the long term consequences.

So, I'll then ask Skyhunter. Let's assume you are correct, what are you suggesting we do?

 

[ShawnD]

G
Here in the midwest we are experiencing cooler than normal temperatures, late spring freezes, today is the coldest Thanksgiving in 12 years. Crops this year were devasted by unusual cold and unusual late freezes.

I'm really curious what you think is the answer.

I think this has something to do with El Nino and La Nina. I remember back in the 97/98 school year everybody's science project was about this "El Nino" thing that was on the news all the time. It was an exceptionally warm year, and I think global warming alarmists named 98 as being the hottest year on record. I'm not sure if that's true, but it doesn't matter, what matters is that El Nino and La Nina happen at regular intervals. El Nino is when it's hot, and it's followed by a La Nina which is cold. 97/98 school year was very warm, while the 98/99 school year was insanely cold.

Wiki

El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a global coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon. The Pacific ocean signatures, El Niño and La Niña are important temperature fluctuations in surface waters of the tropical Eastern Pacific Ocean. The name El Niño, from the Spanish for "the little boy", refers to the Christ child, because the phenomenon is usually noticed around Christmas time in the Pacific Ocean off the west coast of South America.[1] La Niña, similarly, means "the little girl".[2] Their effect on climate in the southern hemisphere is profound. These effects were first described in 1923 by Sir Gilbert Thomas Walker from whom the Walker circulation, an important aspect of the Pacific ENSO phenomenon, takes its name. The atmospheric signature, the Southern Oscillation (SO) reflects the monthly or seasonal fluctuations in the air pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin. The most recent occurrence of El Niño started in September 2006[3] and lasted until early 2007.[4]. From June 2007 on, data indicated a weak La Niña event.
...
...
ENSO conditions seem to have occurred at every two to seven years for at least the past 300 years, but most of them have been weak.

Major ENSO events have occurred in the years 1790-93, 1828, 1876-78, 1891, 1925-26, 1982-83, and 1997-98.[15]

Recent El Niños have occurred in 1986-1987, 1991-1992, 1993, 1994, 1997-1998, 2002-2003, 2004-2005 and 2006-2007.

The El Niño of 1997 - 1998 was particularly strong [16] and brought the phenomenon to worldwide attention. The event temporarilly warmed air temperature by 3°F, compared to the usual increase of 0.5°F associated with El Niño events[17]. The period from 1990-1994 was unusual in that El Niños have rarely occurred in such rapid succession (but were generally weak). There is some debate as to whether global warming increases the intensity and/or frequency of El Niño episodes. (see also the ENSO and Global Warming section above).

Remembering stuff from childhood is cool

 

[Evo]

Your nose out of joint because your statistical consensus comment was shown to be wrong or something? Or is there another reason you are producing these strawmen?

He was responding to a question I asked.

 

[Art]

He was responding to a question I asked.

Pity he didn't just answer your question instead of taking a poke at me

 

[Gokul43201]

Your nose out of joint because your statistical consensus comment was shown to be wrong or something? Or is there another reason you are producing these strawmen?

I guess it must be a strawman to show that your number for volcanic production was off by a factor of a few hundred or to show that your math for adding up the total anthropogenic input to atmospheric CO2 was switching back an forth between different units and hence ending up with the wrong answer.

Furthermore, your quote from a free market advocacy site says:

There are legitimate difficulties with the IPCC's 90 per cent confidence in anthropogenic warming. It is not ludicrous to question what that number means. The IPCC seems to imply that this number results from a scientific process -that it has tested a hypothesis. Indeed, the IPCC tells us its understanding is based "upon large amounts of new and more comprehensive data, more sophisticated analysis of data, improvements in understanding of processes and their simulation in models, and more extensive exploration of uncertainty ranges". If this is what the IPCC has done, it has very weak evidence. Ninety per cent is the weakest acceptable level of confidence in a hypothesis test. It is not clear from the Summary whether the IPCC has, in fact, undertaken such an analysis. It is more likely that it has neither a testable model nor data available for external researchers to replicate such a test.

All this says is that they found little evidence to support an assertion that the confidence interval is an outcome of rigorous hypothesis testing. The following lines are their opinion on what they think is more likely.

I myself am skeptical of the rigor involved in arriving at the significance level, but nothing in your quote shows I'm wrong. Also, the second of the bolded sentences completely misses the point and goes about attacking a strawman. In any case, there's definitely nothing there to show that thie number was just pulled out of thin air.

I wasn't debating with hundreds of scientists I was pointing out a fundamental logical fallacy in Skyhunter's argument as you well know.

Didn't sound that way, but I accept that is possible. Nevertheless, you have attempted "debunkings" of published articles in other threads.

Oh and btw when in the same sentence Skyhunter talked of CO2 and 6-7 Gt I do not think it was unreasonable of me to assume he was still talking about CO2 .

Of course he was talking about CO2. Are you not aware that CO2 volumes are commonly reported using carbon equivalents? Even the article you linked a couple posts ago uses these units!

 

[Skyhunter]

So, I'll then ask Skyhunter. Let's assume you are correct, what are you suggesting we do?

It is already being done. Targets to reduce GHG emissions 80% by 2050 are already being set. Cities are adapting planning strategies to meet the targets. Automobile manufacturers are developing more efficient technologies, and policy makers everywhere are considering the climate impact of decisions. Already local governments are halting the development of dirty energy and industry is responding.

The debate is essentially over as to whether or not human activity, primarily through GHG emissions is influencing climate. The biggest surprise surrounding the release of the Synthesis report is that the expected political opposition dissipated. The people who needed to be convinced are.

What I am doing personally to reduce my carbon footprint is to eat locally organic food, use a bicycle or public transportation for 99% of my needs, conserve energy at home, and engage in local politics. I also build green and volunteer with a few select non profits to promote localization of resources.

Many of the things I am doing now will become mainstream in the near future.

The full effect of the increased radiative forcing from increased GHGs will not be realized for decades as the thermal inertia of the oceans and cryosphere is overcome. The glaciers could very well continue melting for centuries. Increasing CO₂ by 30% is no small thing, it's effects will be felt for a long time to come.

But I will make this prediction. In five years, there will be little doubt that the planet is experiencing an unusual warming trend. We are currently at the start of an upward trend in the 11 year solar cycle that is predicted to be stronger than any since the late 50's. I anticipate that 3 of the next five years will set global records for temperature.

But I am just a carpenter, read the last chapter of the synthesis report, or if you are ambitious, read the http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/pages_media/AR4-chapters.html"

 

[Art]

I guess it must be a strawman to show that your number for volcanic production was off by a factor of a few hundred or to show that your math for adding up the total anthropogenic input to atmospheric CO2 was switching back an forth between different units and hence ending up with the wrong answer.

Please provide an example of me switching back and forth between units.

Furthermore, your quote from a free market advocacy site says:

All this says is that they found little evidence to support an assertion that the confidence interval is an outcome of rigorous hypothesis testing. The following lines are their opinion on what they think is more likely.

I myself am skeptical of the rigor involved in arriving at the significance level, but nothing in your quote shows I'm wrong. Also, the second of the bolded sentences completely misses the point and goes about attacking a strawman. In any case, there's definitely nothing there to show that thie number was just pulled out of thin air.

Did you even read the second reference I supplied to support my contention?? It provided a good level of detail on the methodology they used and where it fell down. Or then again maybe you did but choose not to mention it as it undermines what you've just said. You know there's no harm in admitting when you make a mistake. When I was wrong in the figure I quoted for volcano emission I held my hands up immediately. It's not that hard

Didn't sound that way, but I accept that is possible. Nevertheless, you have attempted "debunkings" of published articles in other threads.

Really? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to show me a few examples or retract this remark as the only time I post in the science section of this forum is to ASK for information not to impart it.

Of course he was talking about CO2. Are you not aware that CO2 volumes are commonly reported using carbon equivalents? Even the article you linked a couple posts ago uses these units!

Actually I thought we had established he wasn't talking about CO2 the figure he provided was for Carbon. In fact it was me thinking he was talking about CO2 that led to the confusion. You'll note carbon even has a different chemical symbol C and I'm surprised Skyhunter didn't simply correct my misunderstanding when I first politely queried it.

 

[Skyhunter]

Got to go.

Thanks everyone for the lively discussion.

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[Gokul43201]

Please provide an example of me switching back and forth between units.

I'm tired of this. You got the wrong answer because you took Sky's number, which was in carbon equivalents, and compared it with a number that was on CO2 volumes.

Did you even read the second reference I supplied to support my contention?? It provided a good level of detail on the methodology they used and where it fell down.

No, I hadn't read that. I have now read it, and more importantly, I've read the Guidance Report thingy of the IPCC - my immediate reaction is that it reads nothing like serious scientific reporting and looks more like it was cooked up by policymakers. I'm appalled! My hands are up for now, but I still contend that the comparison you made is stretching the point. There must be hundreds of published papers in the field where the confidence intervals are rigorously calculated (I've seen this in the only few papers I've fully read).

Really? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to show me a few examples or retract this remark as the only time I post in the science section of this forum is to ASK for information not to impart it.

This was not in the science section. I recall a thread in P&WA, and the paper was related to the Urban Heat Island data. I'm sure you remember it.

Actually I thought we had established he wasn't talking about CO2 the figure he provided was for Carbon. You'll note it even has a different chemical symbol C and I'm surprised Skyhunter didn't simply correct my misunderstanding when I first politely queried it.

That's why I politely corrected it soon after.

 

[Skyhunter]

McKitrick is an Environmental Economist and is not a "blogger" anymore than the realclimate people are bloggers. His work in discrediting the "Hockey Stick" graph by Mann is world renown.

He did not discredit the "Hockey Stick", except in his own mind and in the minds of denialists. The "Hockey Stick" is accepted as a valid reconstruction and is still included along with other independent reconstructions in the 4AR. The "Hockey Stick" was validated by the NAS and the NRC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy"
More recently, the National Academy of Sciences considered the matter. On June 22, 2006, the Academy released a pre-publication version of its report Report-Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,[27] supporting Mann's more general assertion regarding the last decades of the Twentieth Century, but showing less confidence in his assertions regarding individual decades or years, due to the greater uncertainty at that level of precision.

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes ...
Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales." [28]

At the request of the U.S. Congress, a special "Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years" was assembled by the National Research Council's Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. The Committee consisted of 12 scientists from different disciplines and was tasked with explaining the current scientific information on the temperature record for the past two millennia, and identifying the main areas of uncertainty, the principal methodologies used, any problems with these approaches, and how central the debate is to the state of scientific knowledge on global climate change.

The panel published its report in 2006.[29] The report agreed that there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect. The report summarizes its main findings as follows:[30]

* The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models.
* Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.
* It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
* Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
* Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.

In response, a group-authored post on RealClimate, of which Mann is one of the contributors, stated, "the panel has found reason to support the key mainstream findings of past research, including points that we have highlighted previously."[31] Similarly, according to Roger A. Pielke, Jr., the National Research Council publication constituted a "near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al.";[32] Nature (journal) reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph."[33]

According to Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita[34] and Jesus Rouco,[35] reviewing the NAS report on McIntyre's blog ClimateAudit, "With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless."[36] It was noted by their critics, however, that no such statement, explicit or implicit, is present on the two pages cited[37]; the closest the report comes being a statement that "Some recent results reported in Table 1S of Wahl and Ammann (in press) indicate that their reconstruction, which uses the same procedure and full set of proxies used by Mann et al. (1999), gives CE values ranging from 0.103 to -0.215, depending on how far back in time the reconstruction is carried."[38]

However, CE is not the only measure of skill; Mann et al. (1998) used the more traditional "RE" score, which, unlike CE, accounts for the fact that time series change their mean value over time. The statistically significant reconstruction skill in the Mann et al. reconstruction is independently supported in the peer-reviewed literature.[39][40]

It is not accurate to claim that MM2003, discredits MBH1999. McKitrick and McIntyre do not add to the body of scientific knowledge by providing original research, they are focused entirely on trying to tear apart and discredit the work of others for political reasons. And that is obvious to anyone without a bias who reads their website.

The IPCC is political, not scientific. They take work from various scientists then chew up and disgorge a politically correct version written up by non-scientists. This is why so many scientists have resigned and refused to have their work misinterpreted by politically driven non-scientists.

That is a gross misrepresentation of the IPCC.

MANDATE
The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.

WHO WE ARE
The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :

• The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate the review of IPCC Reports.

• 
  [8]The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.

• The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals

WHY THE IPCC WAS CREATED

Climate change is a very complex issue: policymakers need an objective source of information about the causes of climate change, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences and the adaptation and mitigation options to respond to it. This is why WMO and UNEP established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.

The IPCC is a scientific body: the information it provides with its reports is based on scientific evidence and reflects existing viewpoints within the scientific community. The comprehensiveness of the scientific content is achieved through contributions from experts in all regions of the world and all relevant disciplines including, where appropriately documented, industry literature and traditional practices, and a two stage review process by experts and governments.

Because of its intergovernmental nature, the IPCC is able to provide scientific technical and socio-economic information in a policy-relevant but policy neutral way to decision makers. When governments accept the IPCC reports and approve their Summary for Policymakers, they acknowledge the legitimacy of their scientific content.

The IPCC provides its reports at regular intervals and they immediately become standard works of reference, widely used by policymakers, experts and students. The findings of the first IPCC Assessment Report of 1990 played a decisive role in leading to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was opened for signature in the Rio de Janeiro Summit in 1992 and entered into force in 1994. It provides the overall policy framework for addressing the climate change issue. The IPCC Second Assessment Report of 1995 provided key input for the negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and the Third Assessment Report of 2001 as well as Special and Methodology Reports provided further information relevant for the development of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC continues to be a major source of information for the negotiations under the UNFCCC.

The reviewers are not politicians. They are scientists. And the political influence has been strongly against AGW, which has resulted in very conservative language in the final assessment reports. The fourth and final installment of the 4AR, the Synthesis Report, was the first time that the political opposition to the language dissipated. The Bali conference will hopefully result in a comprehensive agreement that addresses all the shortcomings of Kyoto. I expect to see China and India to not get a free pass this time, and for the US to ratify the new treaty.

The simple truth is that CO₂ because of it's molecular shape and vibrational modes, absorbs infrared in a portion of the spectrum not covered by water vapor, and in the absence of water vapor will absorb ~ 33% - 36% of the LW radiation emitted by the Earth. If there is any valid debate, it is centered around how the climate will respond to this increased forcing. The problem is that the deniers are not engaged in honest debate, They are using disinformation and ad hominem attacks against individual scientists and the IPCC.

There is not a single scientific foundation that disputes the conclusions of the IPCC. All of the opposition is coming from a handful of individual scientists, whose numbers are diminishing every year.

[Edit] Here is the http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principales/ipcc-principales-appendix-a.pdf"

Government reviewers are not necessarily experts. I assume this is where the "IPCC is political not scientific" claim stems from. These government appointed reviewers work alongside expert reviewers to generate comments that are then submitted to the relevant working group and lead authors. The reviewers do not write the final reports, they review and the language, offer comments, and finally agree, unanimously on the final language.

 

[Skyhunter]

Here in the midwest we are experiencing cooler than normal temperatures, late spring freezes, today is the coldest Thanksgiving in 12 years. Crops this year were devasted by unusual cold and unusual late freezes.

According to http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/cliwatch/0710/climwatch.0710.htm" the climate has been warmer than usual. Although it does seem that the extremes were more the rule than the exception this year.

http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/cliwatch/0701/climwatch.0701.htm" moderately warmer than normal.
http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/cliwatch/0702/climwatch.0702.htm#" much colder than normal.
http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/cliwatch/0703/climwatch.0703.htm#" starts cold but ends warmer on average across the region.
http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/cliwatch/0704/climwatch.0704.htm" colder than normal.
http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/cliwatch/0704/climwatch.0705.htm" moderately warmer.
http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/cliwatch/0704/climwatch.0704.htm" temperatures varied with precipitation, but the general trend was warmer than normal.
http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/cliwatch/0704/climwatch.0704.htm" was colder and drier than normal.
http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/cliwatch/0708/climwatch.0708.htm" was warmer with some sweltering heat that broke records.
http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/cliwatch/0708/climwatch.0708.htm" was warm and dry or cool and wet. Temperature for the month averages out to normal to slightly warmer.
http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/cliwatch/0708/climwatch.0708.htm" was warmer than usual as well.

Something to keep in mind is that local climate is not indicative of the global conditions. In general however the northern latitudes will experience more warming than the tropics and more frequent extremes of weather will result from increased radiative forcing. There is nothing in the climate record for the Midwest that suggests that the Earth is not becoming unusually warm.

 

[Skyhunter]

No, I hadn't read that. I have now read it, and more importantly, I've read the Guidance Report thingy of the IPCC - my immediate reaction is that it reads nothing like serious scientific reporting and looks more like it was cooked up by policymakers. I'm appalled! My hands are up for now, but I still contend that the comparison you made is stretching the point. There must be hundreds of published papers in the field where the confidence intervals are rigorously calculated (I've seen this in the only few papers I've fully read).

The Synthesis report is written for policymakers, not by policymakers. Although there are government reviewers who are not necessarily experts. The Synthesis report combines the first three assessments and like them is intended for a non scientific readership. It is however an accurate assessment of the current level of scientific understanding. Which is not as comprehensive as I would like to see, but still comprehensive enough to warrant the actions that are currently being taken, and will probably be taken at the upcoming Bali summit.

BTW - thanks for clarifying the difference between carbon emissions and carbon dioxide equivalents.

Art,

Your source says this:

Overall, a natural disturbance causing the recent CO2 rise is extremely unlikely.

You are a smart guy. Land use changes are accounted for in the estimate of human emissions. You now know that volcanoes are less than 1% of human emissions. Now I know I have a confirmation bias, everyone does, it is natural. But when one of my assumptions turns out to be seriously in error, I question all related assumptions.

Maybe, since you thought that volcanic origins of CO₂ were significant, and now know that they are not, perhaps you will review some of your other assumptions made while trying to confirm in your mind that AGW must be wrong since it is costing you money.

 

[Skyhunter]

All

The last post of Skyhunter shows how the brain washing of the warmers work.

The hockeystick showed in fact one tree ring proxy only, the strip-barked Sheep mountain bristlecone pine, which showed unusual growth in the last century. Al other records were highly suppressed due to the akward methods of Mann et al. This unusual growth has likely to do with the mutulation of the bark and the tree adapting. The Idso's introduced these records in a AGU meeting in 1993, stressing that those were unuseable for climate reconstructions. One of the authors of the hockeystick was present at that meeting. Perhaps that gave him an idea.

meanwhile a reconstruction has been done with regular bristlecone pines in the PhD thesis here:

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/Th...ssertation.pdf

wrapped up by Steve McIntyre here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2371
showing that the hockeystick shape is completely gone

meanwhile there is a lot of activity around the new reconstruction of Craig Loehe without the treering proxies showing a strong Medieval Warm Period again, which was completely suppressed by the hockeystick.

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2393

But skyhunter givers a nice demonstration of the warmers science, the desperate attempt to salvage the fraud.

Feel free to post this.

All the best

Andre

I wasn't sure if I should post this or not, but I wanted to rebut. So I felt I should post it in it'd entirety.

Here is a quick clarification.

1. http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/Th...ssertation.pdf
   The data for this reconstruction was from one small geographical area, the White Mountains in California. It is hardly a global representation. The author refuses to even discuss her thesis with Steve McIntyre.
2. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2371
   Which makes this whole excercise by McIntyre one of no consequence. Just another example of Steve McIntyre's futile attempts to try and discredit Mann. I guess it works for him since he seems to make a good living doing nothing else.
3. Then there is this paper http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025 by Craig Leohe, published in Energy & Environment. Here is a critique by http://thatstrangeweather.blogspot.com/
   
   

   In summary, this article is a poorly-described compilation of proxy data, with a conciseness in methodology that borders on farce. In the present form , it is unacceptable in any scientific journal that i am aware of. Though the approach is conceptually useful, it is not novel : the author himself acknowledges that Moberg (2005) and Viau (2006) have left out tree-rings from some parts of their reconstruction before. So what is new here ? It can only be the methodology. We have shown that its elliptic nature is naive at best, misleading at worse. Even with all the good will in the world, it is hard to grant the author the benefit of the doubt, given how loosely he handles his references and prose : this simply is not credible work. The author's argument that his “strategy in writing this was to make it as short as possible to avoid complications during review” is distinctly unconvincing. Why not, then, bypass the whole ‘methods’ section, and simply give us a curve without any explanation ? Brevity is the soul of wit, yes - but when crucial information is missing, this “science” has an odd scent of disinformation.

That is all I have time for today.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Personally, from everything I've read, I think global warming is one of the biggest shams ever put forth onto humanity, and is nothing more than a way for the governments of the UN to try and control societies, and to promote fearmongering.

And to say that the "denialists" are engaged in dishonest argument I think is very unfair. The people promoting global warming are the ones I have seen utilizing the constant fearmongering, and psychological tactics (the poor lovable, cuddly furry polar bears and penguins are in danger!), etc...I see very little ad hominem attacks put against global warming believers (not saying they do not exist though).

And one other thing, remember consensus is not what you go by in science (not that there is necessarilly any consensus on the idea of human-induced global warming). That's also not to say that if there is a consensus on something, you just merely ignore it. If there's a consensus on something and you're information or data disagrees with the consensus, you obviously want to research the topic more. But consensus by no means ends the debate automatically.

As for Mann and the Hockey Stick graph, I don't have the particular source with me at the moment as I read about it in the library, but the Hockey Stick was discredited long ago and the National Academy of Sciences didn't exactly support the Hockey Stick in the way people make out. I don't have enough information with me to explain this though, but IMO look into it more.

 

[Skyhunter]

As for Mann and the Hockey Stick graph, I don't have the particular source with me at the moment as I read about it in the library, but the Hockey Stick was discredited long ago and the National Academy of Sciences didn't exactly support the Hockey Stick in the way people make out. I don't have enough information with me to explain this though, but IMO look into it more.

Here is a http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/"

Here is the http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676#toc"

Feel free to look into it more thoroughly, I already have.

 

[Gokul43201]

And one other thing, remember consensus is not what you go by in science ...

As a layperson, the scientific consensus is ALL you can go by.

 

[mjsd]

Personally, from everything I've read, I think global warming is one of the biggest shams ever put forth onto humanity, and is nothing more than a way for the governments of the UN to try and control societies, and to promote fearmongering.

that's a bit harsh, there are some honest ppl out there. but we would not know the true political intentions behind all these in the near future, we will have to wait 50-100 more years

And to say that the "denialists" are engaged in dishonest argument I think is very unfair.

well... dishonest may be the wrong word... although some do get that impression. It is nothing more than my climiate model versus yours.

The people promoting global warming are the ones I have seen utilizing the constant fearmongering, and psychological tactics (the poor lovable, cuddly furry polar bears and penguins are in danger!), etc...I see very little ad hominem attacks put against global warming believers (not saying they do not exist though).

fearmongering and psychological tactics are a tool in politics, the fact that they have been used should not be seen as something that may weaken the original argument unless there is no original argument in the first place, and that psychological tactics are the only substance. in other words, what propaganda tools one uses should not be used to judge the validity of what they are propagating (for either side).

Of course, many argue that that's the real problem: AGW has no substance, well, you must be within the scientific community, and be expert yourself to judge. merely reading reports sometimes cannot give u the true picture.

 

[WheelsRCool]

As a layperson, the scientific consensus is ALL you can go by.

I disagree with that. As a layperson, you read information from both sides of the debate, and make a decision for yourself.

that's a bit harsh, there are some honest ppl out there. but we would not know the true political intentions behind all these in the near future, we will have to wait 50-100 more years

The political intentions, IMO, are partially to control the United States economy and because it gives politicians an excuse to implement controls over the economy that they otherwise would not be able to.

well... dishonest may be the wrong word... although some do get that impression. It is nothing more than my climiate model versus yours.

Well, I'm not really going by climate models, more just many various articles/books I've read.

fearmongering and psychological tactics are a tool in politics, the fact that they have been used should not be seen as something that may weaken the original argument unless there is no original argument in the first place, and that psychological tactics are the only substance. in other words, what propaganda tools one uses should not be used to judge the validity of what they are propagating (for either side).

I agree, however it makes me highly suspicious of it when utilized by the media and politicians as to what their true agenda really is.

Of course, many argue that that's the real problem: AGW has no substance, well, you must be within the scientific community, and be expert yourself to judge. merely reading reports sometimes cannot give u the true picture.

Mmm...I don't necessarilly agree with that. One doesn't necessarilly need to be an expert in the subject to spot the big picture. To use a metaphor, I think a lot of these scientists I think spend too much time looking at individual trees and miss the overall view of the forest itself.

I do believe the Earth is warming, but that it is caused by humans or that it will cause problems in the future, I do not believe at all.

 

[siddharth]

I disagree with that. As a layperson, you read information from both sides of the debate, and make a decision for yourself.

Mmm...I don't necessarilly agree with that. One doesn't necessarilly need to be an expert in the subject to spot the big picture. To use a metaphor, I think a lot of these scientists I think spend too much time looking at individual trees and miss the overall view of the forest itself.

The point us, afaik, there's relatively little debate in the scientific community. IMO, a layperson usually doesn't have the expertise and isn't qualified to make a meaningful decision on the subject. By definition, the common person gets his information from non-credible sources, like websites, articles in the press, etc, while the scientific consensus is established via articles published in peer-reviewed science journals. There's a big difference.

 

[mjsd]

Well, I'm not really going by climate models, more just many various articles/books I've read.

What I was trying to say was that many scientists disagree on the issue of AGW because they have faith in a different climate models that predicts the situation, as well as different interpretations/extrapolations of the results. At the moment, what is happening is that somehow more scientists (for pure scientific reasonings OR otherwise) are in favor of this particular model that says AGW is a real concern. And I think Gokul43201's point was that as a layman person it is perhaps better to say: "well, since more scientists think it is a problem, maybe there is some truth to it...",
than
"no, given all those tactics we know our politicians like to use, it makes me highly suspicious that all those scientists were truthful at all..."

Mmm...I don't necessarilly agree with that. One doesn't necessarilly need to be an expert in the subject to spot the big picture. To use a metaphor, I think a lot of these scientists I think spend too much time looking at individual trees and miss the overall view of the forest itself.

The process of scientific research is a very complicated one. If you are a researcher youself, you may realize that. and if not, it maybe difficult for you to appreciate what is going on. As a person who does physics research myself, it is quite clear to me that a lot of problems in research are not just something you can do in a few months or years! As a result, in order to get somewhere assumptions and simplifications are made. And when the information are published in popular books or articles, they become further "dumbed down" and many of the technical issues would become forgotten. This is not to say that what you read in books/articles are mostly wrong, but you must appreciate the fact that it may not be the complete picture one way or the other and little subtleties here and there may change your opinion entirely pending on how you weigh them relatively.

And my point was that it is difficult to judge either way when you are not an expert... well, actually in this climate of politics and counter-politics, sometimes even experts are being "tricked" into believing something they would otherwise not. I certainly do not pretend nor claim that I am an expert on this issue. In fact, not even some of my friends who do meteorology would call themselves a better person to talk to on this issue.


My stance on the AGW issue is based on a rather naive reasoning. While I understand that it is probably 50% politics and 50% science (not even sure on the %), I believe that AGW is true merely because many human activities (past and present) cause damage to our environment. Based on that, it seems quite likely, to me at least, that AGW is doing harm. That is not to say that I would immediate believe many of the predicted (or exaggerated) consequences that AGW shall bring. But on the issue of whether we are producing too much pollutant into our atomsphere, I believe that we are doing the environment no favors at all. So, I guess I am not really for or against AGW, I am more of against pumping so much pollutant into the biosphere.

The real issue is of course what to do with AGW... now that's 80% politics and 20% science...

 

[WheelsRCool]

Okay, this post will be a little long, it isn't any brain-twister or anything though.

What I was trying to say was that many scientists disagree on the issue of AGW because they have faith in a different climate models that predicts the situation, as well as different interpretations/extrapolations of the results. At the moment, what is happening is that somehow more scientists (for pure scientific reasonings OR otherwise) are in favor of this particular model that says AGW is a real concern. And I think Gokul43201's point was that as a layman person it is perhaps better to say: "well, since more scientists think it is a problem, maybe there is some truth to it...",
than
"no, given all those tactics we know our politicians like to use, it makes me highly suspicious that all those scientists were truthful at all..."

The process of scientific research is a very complicated one. If you are a researcher youself, you may realize that. and if not, it maybe difficult for you to appreciate what is going on. As a person who does physics research myself, it is quite clear to me that a lot of problems in research are not just something you can do in a few months or years! As a result, in order to get somewhere assumptions and simplifications are made. And when the information are published in popular books or articles, they become further "dumbed down" and many of the technical issues would become forgotten. This is not to say that what you read in books/articles are mostly wrong, but you must appreciate the fact that it may not be the complete picture one way or the other and little subtleties here and there may change your opinion entirely pending on how you weigh them relatively.

And my point was that it is difficult to judge either way when you are not an expert... well, actually in this climate of politics and counter-politics, sometimes even experts are being "tricked" into believing something they would otherwise not. I certainly do not pretend nor claim that I am an expert on this issue. In fact, not even some of my friends who do meteorology would call themselves a better person to talk to on this issue.


My stance on the AGW issue is based on a rather naive reasoning. While I understand that it is probably 50% politics and 50% science (not even sure on the %), I believe that AGW is true merely because many human activities (past and present) cause damage to our environment. Based on that, it seems quite likely, to me at least, that AGW is doing harm. That is not to say that I would immediate believe many of the predicted (or exaggerated) consequences that AGW shall bring. But on the issue of whether we are producing too much pollutant into our atomsphere, I believe that we are doing the environment no favors at all. So, I guess I am not really for or against AGW, I am more of against pumping so much pollutant into the biosphere.

The real issue is of course what to do with AGW... now that's 80% politics and 20% science...

I agree with most of that, one thing that makes me suspicious of global warming is that it is a politicized area of science, and as such, a lot of special interests are pooring a lot of money into the research. Scientists that don't produce the results the interests want can see their funding dry up or their career not advance, so they have to be careful.

There are governments and corporations both with a vested interest in "proving" global warming to be true, and a major problem at that.

For example, Enron was one of the main companies working to prove global warming was true. But Enron was not at all doing it for the good of society, as we have seen!

As for stopping pumping pollutants, that's great, but CO2 isn't exactly a pollutant. When industry burns fossil fuels efficiently, more CO2 is put out. Pollutants are stuff that gets in the CO2 emissions that should have burned, but wasn't, so it comes out as a pollutant. If you can burn fosssil-fuels and get 100% pure CO2 emissions, you aren't polluting at all technically.

Now obviously if CO2 is bad for the environment, one could say it is a pollutant maybe, but it isn't bad.

The point us, afaik, there's relatively little debate in the scientific community. IMO, a layperson usually doesn't have the expertise and isn't qualified to make a meaningful decision on the subject. By definition, the common person gets his information from non-credible sources, like websites, articles in the press, etc, while the scientific consensus is established via articles published in peer-reviewed science journals. There's a big difference.

True, but, while I don't remember the specifics, I have read the peer-review process is flawed in that it can allow a lot of bias to seep through.

Now I myself get skeptical of that, on the one hand, I read about editors of scientific journals and so forth taking open sides on issues when they should remain quiet on the issue, and technicalities that can lead to bias in what gets printed and what doesn't, on the other hand however, global warming skeptics are plenty willing to point to peer-reviewed articles that help one argue GW is baloney. So I get skeptical because I don't want to pick and choose.

Sort of like the GW skeptics who say computer models are way too limited to predict anything properly in the climate and can easily be "fixed" to produce a desired outcome, but then some of those same skeptics seem plenty willing to point to models that say GW is not true!

Or these GW skeptics will say, "Consensus is not what you go by in science." But then if some consensus points in their favor, they say, "There is CONSENSUS on this matter, so there!"

So being a hypocrite as a skeptic one must be careful of!

One reason I am skeptical is simply because fearmongering, IMO, has been utilized a great deal through history to scare the public. There is always SOMETHING that will/could kill us all very horribly very soon, whether it be Martians, nuclear war, etc...after the Cold War ended, it seems global warming grabbed the spotlight.

Another thing is that while there are plenty of areas where there is a consensus and the consensus is right (for example, we all know that despite what the flat-Earthers say, the Earth is round :) ), and historically I believe for everytime a consensus turned out to be wrong, there were many more consensuses that were right, in the times when the consensus was wrong, it resulted in some HUGE blunders for the population subjected to them!

For example, during the early 20th century, eugenics became popular as a way, originally, to improve humanity through genetic engineering I believe (any reader of Crichton will know about this). However, as time went on, it evolved into basically where there was a consensus saying that if we did not eliminate the weaker portion of the gene pool, then it would interbreed with the strong portions of the human race and kill everyone eventually.

Of course, the weaker portion was anything non-Aryan, Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc...all fair game. The United States was the leader in this movement, but then the Nazis became the leader of it soon after.

Well they put the plan into action, and killed about six to ten million people I believe (six million Jews I think?), either way, they killed a lot of people.

Yet there had been a flat-out scientific consensus regarding eugenics. Yet the science wasn't sound.

On a side note, I find this interesting because environmentalists often compare global warming skeptics to Holocaust Deniers, and some have said when things get out of control, maybe we can create Nurembourg-style trials for the skeptics who didn't believe. Well IMO one could easily compare the global warming proponents, the hardcore ones who want drastic action taken immediately, to the Nazis who tried to eliminate the weaker portions of the gene pool, and thus say the Nurembourg-style trials would really be for them, not the other way around. The banning of DDT in Africa has killed more people from Malaria already than the Nazis did, from what I understand, and this was an environmentalist thing.

During the 20th century, particularly in the 1960s, the consensus amongst economists and academics was that socialism was the best way to create an egalitarian society. It still is the consensus to an extent in the media and Hollywood (one can name many socialists in Hollywood!). Skeptics of this theory, such as Milton Friedman, were highly criticized and considered borderline fanatical.

A few hundred million dead people later (and billions more kept in squalid poverty), we know that socialism does the exact opposites of its intentions.

Yet there had been consensus for it at the time.

I view the global warming movement right now the same way. I am very skeptical of it, because even if the warming is being caused by humans, I don't believe it will cause massive harm to anyone, but even if that is true, how we proceed with handling the situation must be done very carefully, so we don't kill massive numbers of people trying to "fix" the problem (say by not allowing the Third World to develop, and then finding out more people died from not allowing them to develop then if we had and just dealt with any problems from warming).

Another reason I am skeptical is because global warming has long been pushed by environmentalists, and environmentalism to me is a religion (which means a few things IMO). Many of the ideas espoused by the global warmers I am very skeptical about.

I say environmentalism is a religion because it is very similar to Christianity in a few ways. Like Christianity, according to the environmentalists, there was a time of peace in the past, when nature was "balanced," everything was peaceful, humans lived "in harmony" with Mother Nature, (like Adam and Eve in their garden). Then there was the moment of sin, when humans started developing technology, manipulating nature to our own ends and means, etc...like Eve eating the fruit from the tree, and then, as Christianity has Revelations, environmentalists say if we do not stop our "sins against the Earth," that we will all die in the coming doomsday when Nature makes the decision to kill us all!

One thing about this is that in academia, Hollywood, and the media, many academics and media elites claim to be "atheist," to not have any religion. But EVERYONE has some set of beliefs ultimately, whether a formal religion or not, and with much of academia, environmentalism has become their religion, the Earth their god, whether they realize this or not. For example, I believe it was chris Matthews who had said before humanity was on the planet, the Earth was a natural paradise.

As such, there is much support in the media and academia and Hollywood over the belief in global warming, and this thus also is one reason for much of the fearmongering.

I also believe this influences the governments of European countries as well. Americans tend to be regarded as a bit "backwards" regarding our Christian beliefs (remember the uproar over Paula Abdul!), in comparison to Europe which has gotten passed that, but one could say all Europe has done is replaced their Christian beliefs with are a belief in environmentalism.

One could say both the U.S. and the Europeans are very conservative regarding their religions in this sense even, for example, in America, you will not at all see the kind of sexual content on TV that you will in Europe! But in Europe, you have about a snowball's chance in an oven of finding a country without a high gasoline tax to discourage driving big vehicles.

And yeah I know that all global warmng believers aren't psycho fanatics or anything, and many are just genuinly concerned about humanity, but much of the pushing for the movement is helped by groups who "claim" to worry about the future of our children, but really would love to kill off the human race if they could get away with it.

Okay back on topic, well many of the things espoused by the global warming believers I tend to see in line with the religious aspects of environmentalism. Here are some:

1) Massive species extinction - this one I wonder how they can possibly predict, because no one knows exactly how many species are on the Earth and how many are not. No one knows how many are dying and how many are being created. Trying to figure this out is incredibly tedious.

For example, many state the rainforests are in terrible danger, as I'm sure you've been aware for many years, yet the co-founder of Greenpeace not too long ago stated that the rainforests, as far as he can see, are pretty fine and healthy right now.

Furthermore, exactly how would more CO2 and warmer temperatures kill off species? Cold does that. Whenever the Earth is warm and with more CO2 in the atmosphere, plants and insects thrive, and as a side effect, so do animals.

2) Massive famines - Again, I don't see how, with high-tech farming methods, and also more CO2 in the air and warmer climates, this should make it easier to farm food

3) Increases in the number and strength of hurricanes - From my understanding, hurricanes result from climate differences between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and with a warmer Northern Hemisphere, this should balance things, making storms less and weather more mild.

Historically, the worst storms, droughts, floods, etc...occurred during the cold periods, not the warm periods, which had nice weather and mild winters. Humanity thrived during the warm periods, for example Rome and the Mayan civilization (these both collapsed during cold periods). Europe was frought with much famine and warfare during the Little Ice Age as well, yet when that ended, prosperity followed. Prosperity also wasi n Greenland when the ice had melted there. The people there died off from starvation when the place froze over.

I also wonder how they try to predict what the weather would be like with a new climate when the have enough trouble predicting it with our current climate. I know climate and weather are two different things, but if you have trouble predicting the weather with the current climate, predicting how the weather will be with a future climate that is itself predicted...?

4) Massive coastal flooding - well for one thing, if the ice in the water melts, I don't see a problem, because water is water, if it's already floating, it can melt and sea levels won't rise, sea level rise would come from glacier melting I think. However, from my understanding, Antartica has about 90% of the world's ice, and is growing colder as far as science can tell at the moment (though this may be disputed soon, but as far as the scientists can currently tell, it's growing colder). Greenland has about 4% of the ice, and the rest of the glaciers in the world account for about 6% of the ice.

From what I've read, there are about 160,000 glaciers in the world, of which about 67,000have been inventoried, and of which only maybe around 100 (a few dozen more or less) have been studied in detail. From what I understand, there are glaciers receding, but there are likely just as many glaciers growing. There isn't enough data to know if they're all melting or not, or going to melt, and even if so, they make up a very small percent of the ice.

Assuming they all did melt, whose to say it would raise sea levels? The excess water might just get absorbed up into the atmosphere more, leading to more rain in certain areas.

5) Diseases - Assuming more life in terms of plants and insects, animals, etc...from warmer climates, I imagine more diseases could flourish, but humanity will die from such diseases because they can flourish easier unless it permits them to.

For example, millions of Africans have died since the banning of DDT which was used to kill mosquitos to prevent malaria from spreading. This disease could be stopped if the African nations were allowed to utilize DDT again.

Since the above tend to be said as many of the problems global warming would supposedly cause, I just don't see anything convincing. If anything, history tells me these things will more likely be averted through warming of the planet, nice vice-versa.

Another reason I also get skeptical is regarding the media. The media itself seems to push an agenda I believe regarding this, a big one, and here's why:

Back in the 1970s, they say scientists believed that an ice age was coming, that Global Cooling was going to occur. Now I'm not sure how true this was of scientists or not, because at the pro-global warming website, realclimate.org, they say this is a myth, that if you review the scientific literature of the time, you see no scientists were pushing the idea of global cooling, that it was the media.

Well I'm not sure how true that is, but let's assume they're correct: Well then, why was the media at the time massively pushing this idea of global cooling? The media at the time claimed there was a "scientific consensus" on the matter, that global cooling was happening, yet if the scientific literature literally didn't mention it, it means the media didn't just stretch the truth, they completely fabricated the whole thing.

Which means, whose to say the media, which is just as agenda-driven today as it was then, is not again manipulating the truth to its own ends?

As such, I believe very little of what I read in the media regarding global warming.

And finally I am skeptical of the IPCC, because in the 1995 IPCC report, the Summary for Policymakers was manipulated to say that they were positive global warming was happening, when in fact the report itself said nothing of the sort. This was nothing more than politicizing of the science. The Summary for Policymakers is what the media and politicians go by, but it is not written by scientists per say, it is a good deal written by bureaucrats from my understanding.

Now of course everything I just said is more reasons to be skeptical as to whether global warming would cause harm, they are pretty useless in arguing against whether humans are causing global warming. There are various other arguments as to why I don't believe humans are causing global warming, but I don't want to write a book here, so suffice it to say I believe it is more from the influence of the Sun and a the 1,500 year climate-cycle discovered from the ice-cores in Greenland and Antarctica and various other proxies found in portions of the world.

 

[Art]

As a layperson, the scientific consensus is ALL you can go by.

And there lies the problem.

It appears the 'consensus' is in reality far less than publicised and as you agreed the published strength of conviction around this so-called consensus has been arrived at in a very dubious manner.

The tactics used by the doom sayers do not appear to be those one would expect from folk with a strong, rational, scientific argument where the facts should speak for themselves.

Surely a key test of a theory is for it to make predictions which can be and are proven to be correct and so far AGW has failed miserably in this regard.

 

[Gokul43201]

Surely a key test of a theory is for it to make predictions which can be and are proven to be correct and so far AGW has failed miserably in this regard.

Are you saying it has failed to make predictions or that it has made predictions that have been way wrong? If it's the latter, could you cite some of the primary predictions and the actual, measured outcomes?

 

[Art]

Are you saying it has failed to make predictions or that it has made predictions that have been way wrong? If it's the latter, could you cite some of the primary predictions and the actual, measured outcomes?

Predictions happen on three levels. The populist level intended to 'raise awareness' amongst the population in general and on a more scientific level to justify the populist level and then on a long time scale level such as 100 years.

Taking the populist level first as I already mentioned in this thread because of the way AGW supporters use the media to push their agenda for them it is difficult to pin them down and so it's 'heads I win tails you lose'

As an example after last years exceptionally hot spell in parts of the UK the UK media was full of sensationalist stories quoting AGW proponents who claimed this was a mere taste of what was to come and that next year would be even hotter and drier. In the event the following year was one of the wettest on record and cooler than average too. This was seized on by colleagues of the same people who had predicted a scorching hot, bone dry summer as proof of GW. In this instance what possible outcome would they admit constituted a failure of their predictions? If it rains it's GW, if it doesn't rain it's GW doesn't leave a lot of null results.

On the second level of predictions I mentioned there are several examples I have seen of failed predictions as in a failure in the prediction pushed to the public but again they always seem to have an each way bet.
Example

Hanna and Cappelen (2003) determined the air temperature history of coastal southern Greenland from 1958-2001, based on data from eight Danish Meteorological Institute stations in coastal and near-coastal southern Greenland, as well as the concomitant sea surface temperature (SST) history of the Labrador Sea off southwest Greenland, based on three previously published and subsequently extended SST data sets (Parker et al., 1995; Rayner et al., 1996; Kalnay et al., 1996). Their analysis revealed that the coastal temperature data showed a cooling of 1.29°C over the period of study, while two of the three SST databases also depicted cooling: by 0.44°C in one case and by 0.80°C in the other. In addition, it was determined that the cooling was "significantly inversely correlated with an increased phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation over the past few decades."

In an even broader study based on mean monthly temperatures of 37 Arctic and 7 sub-Arctic stations, as well as temperature anomalies of 30 grid-boxes from the updated data set of Jones, Przybylak (2000) found that (1) "in the Arctic, the highest temperatures since the beginning of instrumental observation occurred clearly in the 1930s," (2) "even in the 1950s the temperature was higher than in the last 10 years," (3) "since the mid-1970s, the annual temperature shows no clear trend," and (4) "the level of temperature in Greenland in the last 10-20 years is similar to that observed in the 19th century." These findings led him to conclude that the meteorological record "shows that the observed variations in air temperature in the real Arctic are in many aspects not consistent with the projected climatic changes computed by climatic models for the enhanced greenhouse effect," because, in his words, "the temperature predictions produced by numerical climate models significantly differ from those actually observed."

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/SherwoodEtAl.pdf
However as there are some AGW proponents out there somewhere who argue GW will increase ice mass and lower temperatures at one or another or both of the poles although their mainstream argument has been there will be a decrease they have an 'each way bet' and simply quote those others who say it will decrease. Again it's heads I win tails you lose as any gain or loss in ice is claimed as a success for AGW.

Probably because the general public are becoming ever more skeptical of AGW theory and it's dire warnings it seems the emphasis these days is more on the next 100 years or so which attempts to make people feel guilty over predicted consequences they will never be around to see with the added advantage it makes any prediction safe from falsification in our lifetimes.

Another example

"Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say."
-Michael Schirber, LiveScience
June 29, 2005

and

The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier. The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming, Boyer says." -Catherine Brahic, New Scientist
August 23, 2007

See what I mean

Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' is an example of the type of hyperbole which seems to surround climate change discussions where it appears any lie is justified in order to convince people of the urgent need for change. Here's a link to an article detailing 35 errors or exagerations in his documentary http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html


The fact that scientists representing the AGW body of opinion did not themselves immediately distance themselves from his claims in the name of scientific integrity is itself an indication of how politicised this area of science has become.

Returning to the IPCC 'consensus' on man's contribution to GW

Chapter 9 was the key chapter because it attributed a change in climate to human activity but:

(a) Just 62 individuals or government appointed reviewers commented on this chapter

(b) A large number of reviewers had a vested interest in the content of this chapter

- 7 reviewers were "contributing editors" of the same chapter
- 3 were overall editors of the Working Group I report
- 26 were authors or co-authors of papers cited in the final draft
- 8 reviewers were noted as "Govt of ..." indicating one or more reviewers who were appointed by those governments (and sometimes the same comments appear under individual names as well as for the government in question)

- Only 25 individual reviewers appeared to have no vested interest in this chapter

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/fallacies_about_global_warming.html

In conclusion IMO there are a lot of very valid reasons to be extremely skeptical of the claims being made re AGW and while climate change is a valid and important area of research it badly needs a top to bottom review of it's current MO to gain any real credence and the first step should be to remove the bias from the system to obtain and utilise ALL the information required to form a logical conclusion.

 

[Skyhunter]

For example, millions of Africans have died since the banning of DDT which was used to kill mosquitos to prevent malaria from spreading. This disease could be stopped if the African nations were allowed to utilize DDT again.

DDT has not been banned as an anti-mosquito pesticide. This is a classic strawman argument. DDT was banned for widespread agricultural use for, among other reasons, that it led to resistant populations of mosquitoes, thereby negating it's effectiveness as an indoor pesticide.

There were suspensions in the spraying programs, but they were not the result of any "environmental hysteria". To understand what actually happened, it is necessary to learn about the realities of pesticide use. One of the major problems with using pesticides is that insect populations soon develop resistance to the chemicals. Insects resistant to DDT began appearing one year after its first public health use (Garrett, page 50). As new insecticides were introduced, resistance to them also developed. Much of Silent Spring is a cataloging of reports of resistance to insecticides. With the problem of mosquito resistance to DDT in mind, a plan to eradicate malaria was developed--several years of spraying, accompanied by treating patients with anti-malaria drugs, would be followed by several years of monitoring. Here is how Paul Russell, who would head the eradication effort, explained it in 1956 (Quoted in Garrett, page 48):

Generally, it takes four years of spraying and four years of surveillance to make sure of three consecutive years of no mosquito transmission in an area. After that, normal health department activities can be depended upon to deal with occasional introduced cases. . . . Eradication can be pushed through in a community in a period of eight to ten years, with not more than four to six years of actual spraying, without much danger of resistance. But if countries, due to lack of funds, have to proceed slowly, resistance is almost certain to appear and eradication will become economically impossible. Time is of the essence [his emphasis] because DDT resistance has appeared in six or seven years.

Incredible as it might seem, while public health officials were cautiously limiting the usage of DDT, it was being used in increasing amounts in agriculture, especially on cotton, a cash crop (Chapin & Wasserstrom). This heavy use led to resistance among malaria carrying mosquitoes throughout the tropics. In this instance, the unwise use of DDT, rather than improving life, actually resulted in a resurgence of malaria. According to Chapin & Wasserstrom (page 183) "Correlating the use of DDT in El Salvador with renewed malaria transmission, it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."

http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm

 

[Art]

This article suggests it was banned in Africa but the ban was rethought as a result of a cost/benefit analysis.

In Africa, DDT Makes
A Comeback To Save Lives
by Marjorie Mazel Hecht

Spurred by the dramatic and life-saving results in a few African nations that persisted in using DDT, a larger group of nations, now malaria-ravaged, want to use the banned pesticide. Marjorie Mazel Hecht reports.

The use of DDT for spraying the inside walls of houses, a proven way to quickly stop the rate of malaria incidence, is making a comeback in African nations where saving lives has been given priority over the fears and lies of environmentalists.

In Uganda, Minister of Health Brigadier Jim Muhwezi has renewed house spraying in the most malarious areas, with the approval of the Ugandan Cabinet. Muhwezi dismissed the critics of DDT, saying, "How many people must die of malaria while these debates continue? If DDT can save lives, why not use it as we wait for the alternatives," as reported in the Kampala newspaper, New Vision, on April 27. Muhwezi also noted that the country of Mauritius was about to be declared malaria free because of its use of DDT.

In Zambia, where malaria incidence and deaths had climbed since the 1980s, the Health Minister is aggressively pursuing the use of DDT to fight malaria, after great success using DDT in the copper mining areas beginning in 2000. When the Konkola Copper Mines began spraying the inside walls of houses with DDT, there was a 50% reduction of malaria in one year. The next year, there was a further 50% reduction, and since then there have been no malaria deaths in that region.

In Zimbabwe, Minister of Health David Parirenyatwa reintroduced DDT because it was "cheap and more effective, with a longer residual killing power." He told the Bulawayo Chronicle in October 2003, "So many people have died of malaria since January and we are doing our best to control it... DDT is very effective, because it sticks for a long time on the walls and kills a lot of mosquitoes with a single spray... South Africa and Swaziland are using it, and I don't see why we should not use it."

In Kenya, the DDT fight is still on, with the director of Kenya's premier research institute, KEMRI, taking a strong stand for the use of DDT, and another research institute, the International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology, taking the anti-DDT, environmentalist view. Malaria now kills 700 Kenyans a day, and as KEMRI director Davy Koech told the opposition, "Anything that can reduce malaria deaths by 80% should be given another thought."

Kenya had a terrible outbreak of malaria after heavy rains in 2002, with hundreds of deaths. According to the group Doctors without Borders, there are about 8.2 million cases of malaria reported in Kenya per year. The epidemic-prone areas are the highlands, where about 23% of the population lives.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/sci_techs/3124ddt_africa.html

 

[Gokul43201]

Another example

"Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say."
-Michael Schirber, LiveScience
June 29, 2005

and

The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier. The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming, Boyer says." -Catherine Brahic, New Scientist
August 23, 2007

See what I mean

Since you "forgot" to include links for those quotations, I had to dig them up myself to make sure I could "see what you mean".

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_fresh_water.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12528

Now, after reading both articles completely, I don't really see what you mean.

Specifically, the second article that talks about increased salinity in surface waters, also has the following to say:

Backing up this finding, when the team looked at the salinity of deeper waters, those flowing more than 1300 metres beneath the surface, they found that these have been getting less salty since the late 1980s. They see this as a sign that the pulse of freshwater has been slowly making its way south.

It looks reasonable to me that warming of the sea surface will produce more surface salinity, while dilution from melting ice-mass will produce less deep-sea salinity (but that's just my layman opinion). There's also the fact that the two quotes you posted represent data taken from different oceanic latitudes, the first one from the Nordic Sea area, and the second from US coastal waters. Given that the migration of arctic water southwards takes several years, it's meaningless to juxtapose them as you did and say "See!"

I see no real contradiction. The only problem that I can extract from the articles is the ability to model the different water flows.

In any case, I was asking for predictions from published research or previous IPCC reports that claimed a high confidence in blah happening when in fact, antiblah happened. News reports and popularizations do not a science make.

 

[Art]

Getting sick of this nonsense

Wrong AGAIN!

Since you "forgot" to

...yet again click on the link I provided I'll provide it yet again http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html

And I am still waiting for you to substantiate this slur

Didn't sound that way, but I accept that is possible. Nevertheless, you have attempted "debunkings" of published articles in other threads.

So far you have responded with ONE single example (ironically with no link ) of ONE article I criticized in ONE thread in the POLITICAL forum for being IMO politically motivated. Now as someone who makes claim to some knowledge of statistics please explain how you extrapolated this

debunkings" of published articles in other threads

from your ONE false data point. I'd be fascinated to know which statistical model you used to justify your conclusion. Maybe it's the same one the IPCC use

I'm surprised you haven't received a warning yet from one of the moderators for your continuous false accusations. Personally I am getting tired of the effort I am having to expend in rebutting your insulting and nonsensical personal accusations/lies every one of which I have shown WITH, where appropriate, LINKS to be untrue.

It seems to me that whilst I and others here are trying to have a discussion on the politicisation of GW you on the other hand are merely interested in trying to find excuses to launch personal attacks on me through false accusations exaggerations and misrepresentations derailing the thread in the process. Even your purposed response to a question posed by Evo bore no bearing on the question asked but was simply used as a vehicle for yet another blatant attack on me. I wonder what the statistical odds are on that being accidental?

So you made an error in trying to ridicule me whilst claiming statistical science lay behind the IPCC's confidence ratings and I showed you were wrong so your ridicule back-fired on you damaging your ego. Well get over it and stop with the nonsense.

Here's another link you might find useful. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem Recognise the tactic?? p.s. don't forget to click on this one.

 

[Skyhunter]

This article suggests it was banned in Africa but the ban was rethought as a result of a cost/benefit analysis.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/sci_techs/3124ddt_africa.html

The problem with the article, that it only "suggests" what "may" be the "truth". So since the author has already biased the reader with this lead in:

saving lives has been given priority over the fears and lies of environmentalists

So IMO this article is a piece of trash pretending to be journalism.

The ban on DDT was for use as an agricultural pesticide, not an indoor pesticide. If it's widespread outdoor use had not been curtailed, it would no longer be an effective indoor pesticide. And it is an effective indoor pesticide because it remains in the environment for a long long time. But DDT in your house is better than malaria.

Eradicating malaria is more complicated than just spraying poison everywhere. I believe it is possible, but until there is a comprehensive program with 100% commitment from all tropical nations, backed by the first world, everything else will just be stopgap measures. I suggest we get busy eradicating it before the tropics become bigger as the climate warms.

BTW - LaRouche publications is not a particularly good source of credible information.

 

[Gokul43201]

Wrong AGAIN! ...yet again click on the link I provided I'll provide it yet again http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html

You call that sourcing your quotes? That link has exactly as much of the quotes as you've pasted into the post. It is no more of a source than your own post is. All it provides is the sound byte that you want us to hear and nothing more. On the other hand, the links that I provided tell the whole story and reveal the trickery hidden behind the snipping.

And I am still waiting for you to substantiate this slurSo far you have responded with ONE single example (ironically with no link ) of ONE article I criticized in ONE thread in the POLITICAL forum for being IMO politically motivated. Now as someone who makes claim to some knowledge of statistics please explain how you extrapolated this from your ONE false data point. I'd be fascinated to know which statistical model you used to justify your conclusion. Maybe it's the same one the IPCC use

I'm surprised you haven't received a warning yet from one of the moderators for your continuous false accusations. Personally I am getting tired of the effort I am having to expend in rebutting your insulting and nonsensical personal accusations/lies every one of which I have shown WITH, where appropriate, LINKS to be untrue.

It seems to me that whilst I and others here are trying to have a discussion on the politicisation of GW you on the other hand are merely interested in trying to find excuses to launch personal attacks on me through false accusations exaggerations and misrepresentations derailing the thread in the process. Even your purposed response to a question posed by Evo bore no bearing on the question asked but was simply used as a vehicle for yet another blatant attack on me. I wonder what the statistical odds are on that being accidental?

So you made an error in trying to ridicule me whilst claiming statistical science lay behind the IPCC's confidence ratings and I showed you were wrong so your ridicule back-fired on you damaging your ego. Well get over it and stop with the nonsense.

Here's another link you might find useful. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem Recognise the tactic?? p.s. don't forget to click on this one.

Grow up already, Art! So now it's not about whether you've violated the rules, but in which specific forum and how often! That's arguing from a position of strength.