Global Warming

[honestfool84]

some of my favorites, the rest of the irony can be found here. (http://ifglobalwarmingisrealthenwhyisitcold.blogspot.com/)

thought it fitting with this winter storm going on up north.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rpiegz3et3E/S3YYE12MFJI/AAAAAAAAANA/SxZhWehZ1zw/s400/30at06b.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rpiegz3et3E/S3YYBefFLrI/AAAAAAAAAM4/QH2FgwumeQg/s400/2r4u1ip.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rpiegz3et3E/S3XIaECHSFI/AAAAAAAAAMw/QeLdQjU7204/s400/2a4r8r8.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rpiegz3et3E/S3XIS3hhgII/AAAAAAAAAMo/DPgwNjrXk-k/s400/ek4abp.gif

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rpiegz3et3E/S3Rg3eEmjqI/AAAAAAAAAMg/4mQJ6XmZNG4/s400/mkdmo0.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rpiegz3et3E/S3L5fG0uHZI/AAAAAAAAAMI/ERZNlkjsfSA/s400/2j5h2sn.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rpiegz3et3E/S24k85pvJ-I/AAAAAAAAALo/28uxrDaqkS4/s400/bish1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rpiegz3et3E/S24k5or5W0I/AAAAAAAAALg/CwhuxDezBFA/s400/cole.jpg

[polandprzem]

maybe the wrming has ended maybe not. It would be better if it not because it can be the begining of ice era

[Bukefal]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rpiegz3et3E/S0pR6Wg6DUI/AAAAAAAAAKA/q1RrMTtMeIw/s400/darkow.jpg

:lol

[mookie2001]

its winter you know

[Mark in Austin]

in other news, the fact that it's light outside RIGHT NOW means it will never be dark again.

Holy shit.

[CosmicCowboy]

Global Warming fanatics remind me very much of religious fanatics. It's all about BELIEVING.

[DAF86]

http://globalwarmingsiren.com/wp-content/gallery/before-and-after/globalwarming-beforeafter.jpg

http://www.twolia.com/blogs/zoboxrox/files/2009/04/before-after-global-warming-glacier1.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Here's something of interest on the topic:

SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION? (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf)

[boutons_deux]

Global Warming fanatics remind me very much of religious fanatics. It's all about funding LYING.

All of the global warming deniers can be traced back to funding by oil/gas/energy/etc corporations that would have to spend $Bs to stop polluting air, water, land.

Facts come from 1000s of global warming scientists.

Funded "facts" come from global warming deniers.

Global Warming fanatics remind me very much of militant, "Christian"-supremacist, Bible-thumping sheeple, who apparently haven't read anything in the entire lives except the Bible, and even there, they depend totally on their money-grubbing, hate-mongering "shepherds" to hear that Biblical stories, written for intellectual children, are "in fact" scientific and verified history.

[EmptyMan]

LOL @ the chumps who were actually convinced the global warming movement was about the environment.

lolololololololololololol Nice prius brah.

[CosmicCowboy]

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010

* Comments (587)
* Add to My Stories


* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Professor Phil Jones

Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.


More...

* MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The professor's amazing climate change retreat

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.

That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.

Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.
Enlarge Chart


But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fZPMyFeG

[sabar]

http://globalwarmingsiren.com/wp-content/gallery/before-and-after/globalwarming-beforeafter.jpg

http://www.twolia.com/blogs/zoboxrox/files/2009/04/before-after-global-warming-glacier1.jpg


This is still trying to use short-term data to describe long-term trends :lol

The skeptics use data from one year and the supporters use data from 200 years. Too bad geology occurs on scales that are so much larger.

[CosmicCowboy]

This is still trying to use short-term data to describe long-term trends :lol

The skeptics use data from one year and the supporters use data from 200 years. Too bad geology occurs on scales that are so much larger.

And even assuming the data to support the "hockey stick" was correct (which is a huge leap of faith since it no longer exists) even 200 years is just short term. The earth has heated, the earth has cooled, the earth has heated, the earth has cooled...and all long before man had ANY influence on the planet.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

El fucking Nino. Changes the path of the jet stream. Leads to increased likelihood of extra big dumps of snow on the US Eastern seaboard. How many times do I have to explain this?

As for climate change, I'm not even going to debate it any more. There is simply no point. Deniers deny while in complete ignorance of the breadth and scope of understanding of recent paleoclimate history, and the climate system in general. Opinions are entrenched in complete ignorance of the mainstream evidence. Peer-reviewed science is conflated with politics and grand conspiracy theories and confused for witchcraft. Fuck it, and fuck all you denier dumbasses.

[CosmicCowboy]

El fucking Nino. Changes the path of the jet stream. Leads to increased likelihood of extra big dumps of snow on the US Eastern seaboard. How many times do I have to explain this?

As for climate change, I'm not even going to debate it any more. There is simply no point. Deniers deny while in complete ignorance of the breadth and scope of understanding of recent paleoclimate history, and the climate system in general. Opinions are entrenched in complete ignorance of the mainstream evidence. Peer-reviewed science is conflated with politics and grand conspiracy theories and confused for witchcraft. Fuck it, and fuck all you denier dumbasses.

Read the fucking news. The VERY PEOPLE YOU HAVE BEEN RELYING ON TO PROVE GLOBAL WARMING ARE ADMITTING THEY FUDGED THE DATA AND IT IS VERY POSSIBLE THAT THERE IS NO MAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING.

[CosmicCowboy]

THE GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE RETREAT
Story Image


A key scientist has conceded that there has been no "statistically significant" rise since 1995

Monday February 15,2010
By Ed Price

Comment Speech Bubble Have your say(27)

THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.

Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.

The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.

Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.

The revelations will be seized upon by sceptics as fresh evidence that the science of global warming is flawed and climate change is not man-made.

The Daily Express has led the way in exposing flaws in the arguments supporting global warming.

Last month we revealed how the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was “speculation” lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The influential IPCC then admitted it had got the key claim wrong and announced a review.

The Daily Express has also published a dossier listing 100 reasons why global warming was part of a natural cycle and not man-made.

Yesterday it emerged that Professor Jones, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, had admitted he has trouble “keeping track” of the information.

Colleagues have expressed concern that the reason he has refused Freedom of Information requests for the data is that he has lost some of the crucial papers.

Professor Jones also conceded for the first time that the world may have been warmer in medieval times than now. Sceptics have long argued the world was warmer between 800 and 1300AD because of high temperatures in northern countries.

Climate change advocates have always said these temperatures cannot be compared to present day global warming figures because they only apply to one specific zone.

But Professor Jones said: “There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not.

The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

“For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the southern hemisphere. There are very few climatic records for these latter two regions.

“Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.”

Professor Jones first came under scrutiny when he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in which leaked emails were said to show scientists were manipulating data.

Researchers were accused of deliberately removing a “blip” in findings between 1920 and 1940, which showed an increase in the Earth’s temperature.

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama and a former lead author on the IPCC, said: “The apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

Ross McKitrick, of the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited to review the IPCC’s last report said: “We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias.”

[Bukefal]

Ive said it before in here recently, of course there is change of climate, but that's just a natural phenomena, which has always been here on earth. Ive always been sceptic on this so called GW fear.

If its a human cause, we dont know, there is no evidence. These scientists cant speak of evidence, there is none, we dont know what and why. Plus now it comes out that their researches are even based on lies and fudging data.

The main thing is that if people are scared, you can do anything with them and people will spend. This global warming fear and hype is very good for economics ----> certain peoples pockets and power and generating funds.

Im looking forward to see how this situation with IPCC will fold out.

[Bukefal]

El fucking Nino. Changes the path of the jet stream. Leads to increased likelihood of extra big dumps of snow on the US Eastern seaboard. How many times do I have to explain this?

As for climate change, I'm not even going to debate it any more. There is simply no point. Deniers deny while in complete ignorance of the breadth and scope of understanding of recent paleoclimate history, and the climate system in general. Opinions are entrenched in complete ignorance of the mainstream evidence. Peer-reviewed science is conflated with politics and grand conspiracy theories and confused for witchcraft. Fuck it, and fuck all you denier dumbasses.

You sir, need to calm down. You are the one who is making a fool out yourself when doing so. Why discuss when you cant hold the anger and disagree? Over the last weeks with this GW discussion on here you have been belittling everyone who disagrees with you, you curse all the time when you see people having different opinions than you.

Come on man, just discuss and talk, don't bash and curse all the time, it's not necessary.

Do you see anyone else in this or the other thread doing that? Did you see me calling you a naive, GW hyped up, green peace tree hug loving, brainwashed d-bag? just because I dont agree with you? No!! well, now I did, as an example. :lol

:toast relax man, and tell us something about these reports about the IPCC fraud instead.

[CosmicCowboy]

Global Warming has slowed down the last few years because of the Somalian Pirates!

http://thepeoplescube.com/red/richedit/upload/2k47c73ed688.png

[tlongII]

Ruff can't change his position now. This is what he's chosen as his life's work.

[CosmicCowboy]

Ruff can't change his position now. This is what he's chosen as his life's work.

I hear they are going to make a "40 Year Old Virgin II"

He can always try out for the lead in that if his global warming gig takes a dump.

[Bukefal]

Ruff can't change his position now. This is what he's chosen as his life's work.

Yeah, that's exactly why Im interested to see what he thinks about this recent IPCC fraud.

[tlongII]

Yeah, that's exactly why Im interested to see what he thinks about this recent IPCC fraud.

I have no doubt that he will state there is no actual fraud involved.

[Wild Cobra]

Read the fucking news. The VERY PEOPLE YOU HAVE BEEN RELYING ON TO PROVE GLOBAL WARMING ARE ADMITTING THEY FUDGED THE DATA AND IT IS VERY POSSIBLE THAT THERE IS NO MAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING.
It's no use. He went to college at the University of Indoctrination.

[Wild Cobra]

Ruff, I suggest you read this:

SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION? (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf)

[CosmicCowboy]

BTW, be sure and remember Charlie Gonzales next election for voting for cap and tax. Here's his reply to my e-mail last June...

Dear Friend:



Thank you for sharing your interest in our nation's energy policy. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.



On June 26, 2009, I joined other members of the House of Representatives in supporting and passing legislation that will overhaul our outdated and inefficient energy policy. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, HR 2454, makes significant progress in enhancing America's energy independence while creating new clean energy jobs and protecting our environment.



Key provisions of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, HR 2454, call for investments in new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, including electric and other advanced technology vehicles, and basic scientific research and development. Most importantly we strive to fund these investments while protecting consumers from energy price increases. These programs should protect consumers from electricity, natural gas, and heating oil increases while also protecting low and moderate income families and providing tax dividends for consumers. In combination, these programs substantially reduce the impact of HR 2454 on American consumers.



As a San Antonian, I understand the importance and value of our local industries. I worked with my Committee on Energy and Commerce to ensure that CPS Energy, our local electricity distribution company, would not only be eligible for a free allocation of credits, but would also be allowed to receive these for their new plant which is expected to come on-line within the next few years. These allocations will be essential in maintaining low rates for customers, especially those struggling financially. Other industries, such as manufacturers and refiners, will also receive allowances that will help them through a finite transition period as we move toward cleaner energy production and usage.



This legislation promotes clean energy and takes into account the role our traditional sources must play as we make this transition. Not being dependent on foreign sources for 60 percent of our transportation fuels is simply a matter of national security and is long overdue. A cleaner environment will be better for us all, and we must not and do not need to hurt consumers to get there. While HR 2454 is pending action by the Senate, I am hopeful that it will move quickly through the legislative process.



Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me and please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding your legislative concerns.



Sincerely,

Charles A. Gonzalez
Member of Congress

[scott]

Let's assume there is no man-contributed Global Warming, and it's just a giant farce.

Does it really matter?

Which of the following are a bad thing:

Greater energy efficiency
Reduced pollution
Reduced consumption of oil
More efficient public transit

[CosmicCowboy]

Let's assume there is no man-contributed Global Warming, and it's just a giant farce.

Does it really matter?

Which of the following are a bad thing:

Greater energy efficiency
Reduced pollution
Reduced consumption of oil
More efficient public transit

None of those are bad things if the decision is driven by rational free market economic considerations.

Driving those same decisions by irrational public policy and punitive taxation with Federal bureaucrats picking winners and losers using tax dollars stolen from the losers is NOT a good thing.

[shelshor]

Read the fucking news. The VERY PEOPLE YOU HAVE BEEN RELYING ON TO PROVE GLOBAL WARMING ARE ADMITTING THEY FUDGED THE DATA AND IT IS VERY POSSIBLE THAT THERE IS NO MAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING.

Score Card for 19 Global Warming/Climate Change Scandals

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html?wap=0
From the Register's Opinion Page: What To Say To A Global Warming Advocate
By MARK LANDSBAUM
Register editorial writer and columnist
Published: Feb. 12, 2010
Updated: Feb. 15, 2010 11:54 a.m.
[email protected]

It has been tough to keep up with all the bad news for global warming alarmists. We're on the edge of our chair, waiting for the next shoe to drop. This has been an Imelda Marcos kind of season for shoe-dropping about global warming.
At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.
ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"
FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?
ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.
HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.
PachauriGate– Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.
PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.
SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?
SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.
AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.
PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.
RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.
Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.
U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.
IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?
ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.
ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.
AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.
AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.
Fold this column up and lay it next to your napkin the next time you have Al Gore or his ilk to dine. It should make interesting after-dinner conversation.
Contact the writer: [email protected] 714-796-5025
WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Letters to the Editor: E-mail to [email protected]. Please provide your name and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published). Letters of about 200 words will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

[CosmicCowboy]

El fucking Nino. Changes the path of the jet stream. Leads to increased likelihood of extra big dumps of snow on the US Eastern seaboard. How many times do I have to explain this?

As for climate change, I'm not even going to debate it any more. There is simply no point. Deniers deny while in complete ignorance of the breadth and scope of understanding of recent paleoclimate history, and the climate system in general. Opinions are entrenched in complete ignorance of the mainstream evidence. Peer-reviewed science is conflated with politics and grand conspiracy theories and confused for witchcraft. Fuck it, and fuck all you denier dumbasses.

And in breaking news, Australian man found curled into fetal position, sobbing, clutching his student loan statements, and whining "It HAS to be true! It HAS to be true!"

[tlongII]

But it's Peer-reviewed science!...................or not.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

:lol

Of course there's a massive move to discredit professor Jones - there's an entire PR industry working to discredit EGW. I will counter your article (from the fucking Daily Mail for christsake... really credible source on climate, that!) with another, but what's the point really since you won't read it, and even if you do it won't dent your opinion:

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-12-09-09.pdf

And what about the thousands of other scientists working on EGW? Are they all liars and frauds too? Obviously, according to you, but the people who are cherry-picking and misquoting their work are honest, upstanding and righteous souls. Oh yes, of course they are.

Nothing I say is going to change your opinions in the slightest, so I give up. I simply concede. It's not worth wasting my time and energy on people who:

1. know nothing of the science (WC excepted - he understands some of it) and are unwilling to go to primary sources and learn about it;

2. have completely closed minds to even the possibility that they might be wrong; and,

3. regard science as if it is some kind of magic show full of tricks and illusions, when it is actually the most rigourous endeavour embarked upon by humanity.

So really, why bother?

PS Just for you tlong - I am not a climatologist, and I have NOT devoted my life to EGW. I am an expert in sustainability, although you are too obtuse to recognise the difference.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

And in breaking news, Australian man found curled into fetal position, sobbing, clutching his student loan statements, and whining "It HAS to be true! It HAS to be true!"

You're a sad old fuck, aren't you?

I don't have a student debt because we don't have to borrow money from banks to pay exorbitant university fees here. You borrow from the government, most degrees cost under $20,000 total, and you pay it back through your taxes. But you wouldn't know that because you didn't actually bother to look into whether or not the Australian tertiary education system is run along the same profit-driven lines as that in the US. Much like your "understanding" of climate science, eh?

[tlongII]

http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191

Antarctic Ice is Growing, not Melting Away


Ice expanding in much of Antarctica Eastern coast getting colder Western section remains a concern

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland.

Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise.

Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. "I don't think there's any doubt it is contributing to what we've seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica," he said.

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

:rolleyes


Why Antarctic ice is growing despite global warming

* For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide

It's the southern ozone hole whatdunit. That's why Antarctic sea ice is growing while at the other pole, Arctic ice is shrinking at record rates. It seems CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals have given the South Pole respite from global warming.

But only temporarily. According to John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey, the effect will last roughly another decade before Antarctic sea ice starts to decline as well.

Arctic sea ice is decreasing dramatically and reached a record low in 2007. But satellite images studied by Turner and his colleagues show that Antarctic sea ice is increasing in every month of the year expect January. "By the end of the century we expect one third of Antarctic sea ice to disappear," says Turner. "So we're trying to understand why it's increasing now, at a time of global warming."

In a new study, Turner and colleagues show how the ozone hole has changed weather patterns around Antarctica. These changes have drawn in warm air over the Antarctic Peninsula in West Antarctica and cooled the air above East Antarctica.

The Southern Ocean is home to some of the strongest ocean winds on the planet. The region between 40° and 60° South is well-known to sailors who call it the "roaring forties" and "furious fifties".
Wind vortex

If the South Pole were smack in the middle of Antarctica, the winds would circle neatly around it in a clockwise direction. But in fact the continent is set slightly off-centre relative to the South Pole. As a result, the winds whip off Victoria Land and create a vortex over the Southern Ocean north of the Ross Sea (see blue area in figure). Turner compares this to the way wind going down a line of buildings will whip into a vortex when it comes to a corner.

The vortex generates a large area of storm activity. It also draws in warm air from South America over the Antarctic Peninsula, making this the warmest region of the continent.

By running an atmospheric computer model with and without the ozone hole, Turner and his colleagues found that the depletion of the ozone has intensified the winds of the roaring forties and furious fifties. The net result has been to draw more warm air in from Chile – which has warmed the Antarctic peninsula and caused the collapse of several ice shelves – and generate stronger cool-air storms around the Ross Sea.

Satellite data shows that sea ice has shrunk west of the Antarctic Peninsula and grown in the Ross Sea. Because the increase in sea ice extent has been greater than the reduction around the Antarctic peninsula the net effect is that since the ozone hole appeared 30 years ago, Antarctic ice has grown. The researchers say their models suggest this is most likely a result of the ozone hole although they cannot rule out the possibility that natural variations in sea ice extent have also played a role.

"Over the next 50 to 100 years, the ozone hole will heal," says Turner. "At the same time, greenhouse gases will rise. In next decade or so we should see sea ice plateauing and then decreasing massively if greenhouse gases continue to increase."

Earlier this year, research led by Eric Steig of the University of Washington, Seattle showed that although the Antarctic continent as a whole has warmed by 0.5°C in the last 50 years – on a par with the global average – the figure hides strong regional differences. West Antarctica has warmed while temperatures over East Antarctica have dropped.

Accordingly, the disintegration of large ice shelves have all been in West Antarctica, the most famous example being the Larsen ice shelf. More recently, scientists have been anxiously expecting the Wilkins ice shelf to collapse as well.

Journal reference: Geophysical Research Letters (DOI: 10.1029/2009GL037524, in press)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16988-why-antarctic-ice-is-growing-despite-global-warming.html

[tlongII]

:rolleyes

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I love John Stewart. You don't realise that Stewart is taking the piss out of PEOPLE LIKE YOU!? :lmao :lmao :lmao

Every time you talk about anything even semi-serious you own yourself. You have a 100% record on getting it wrong. :lmao

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/05/nyregion/el-nino-takes-a-supporting-role-in-snowstorm.html?pagewanted=1

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/02/extreme_snow_rain_this_winter_1.html

[tlongII]

I love John Stewart. You don't realise that Stewart is taking the piss out of PEOPLE LIKE YOU!? :lmao :lmao :lmao

Every time you talk about anything even semi-serious you own yourself. You have a 100% record on getting it wrong. :lmao

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/05/nyregion/el-nino-takes-a-supporting-role-in-snowstorm.html?pagewanted=1

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/02/extreme_snow_rain_this_winter_1.html

Dude, you don't even know his name is Jon Stewart. I know his viewpoints. I just think it's a funny bit.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Here's something of interest on the topic:

SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION? (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf)

I took a look at that, and it's convincingly done, a really nice piece of PR without a lot of peer-reviewed science behind it. It was put together by the Science and Public Policy institute, a denier group who love Lord Monckton, the Brit who has a degree in Latin but thinks he understands the climate, and tours the globe for money spreading his lies:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institut e

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joseph_D%27Aleo

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lord_Monckton

Why go to sources like them and not direct to Journals like Geophysical Letters and the Journal of Climatology? Because you wouldn't find the evidence to support your agenda is why.

I suggest you take a look at this:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/15/the-climate-science-project-global-warming-is-happening-ocean-heat-content/#more-19287

It makes the excellent point that what we must look at is the total heat content of all of the planet's systems, and it links to the recent peer-reviewed science on the matter.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Dude, you don't even know his name is Jon Stewart. I know his viewpoints. I just think it's a funny bit.

Yes, it is a funny bit, I enjoyed it, thanks.

And yeah, it is Jon. That was just a mistake.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010

* Comments (587)
* Add to My Stories


* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Professor Phil Jones

Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.


More...

* MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The professor's amazing climate change retreat

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.

That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.

Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.
Enlarge Chart


But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fZPMyFeG

RoseGate becomes DailyMailGate: Error-riddled articles and false statements destroy Daily Mail’s credibilty
Two top climate scientists and the NSIDC accuse Daily Mail of misquoting and misrepresenting them or their work.
February 15, 2010

Readers should assume that everything they see in the Daily Mail is untrue and unverified. Scientists should refuse to grant interviews to the paper without a third-party present or an agreement to allow a review of any quotes used.

One of the British newspapers leading the charge to undermine the credibility of climate science has had its own credibility rocked. Two leading scientists, Murari Lal and Mojib Latif, have accused the Daily Mail of misquoting and misrepresenting them. And the National Snow and Ice Data Center has accused the paper of printing “nonsense” and of “very lazy journalism.”

Lending further credibility to the scientists’ charges are a pattern of false and misleading statements in the paper (and by DM reporter David Rose in comments on this very blog).

The latest self-inflicted body blow to the Daily Mail is this outrageously false headline (and subhed) echoing through the right-wing blogosphere:


Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

… There has been no global warming since 1995

Not. Here’s the BBC interview with Phil Jones that DM is twisting:


BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming.

Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Jones ain’t great at answering questions, something I’ll return to in a later post. For instance, he should point out the recent Met Office reanalysis of their data (see Finally, the truth about the Hadley/CRU data: “The global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming”).

Even so, no scientist should have to put up with that kind of gross misrepresentation. And no, the fact that the story itself is (a tad) better on this one point does not excuse the headlines, which is as far as many people read.

Sadly, pushing disinformation has become standard operating procedure for the paper.

DailyMailGate (aka RoseGate) began with two articles that had unjustifiably sensational headlines in early January, “The mini ice age starts here” by David Rose and “Could we be in for 30 years of global COOLING? By [unnamed] Daily Mail Reporter.” Both were based on misrepresenting Latif and NSIDC’s work, as I showed here. Latif went to the UK’s Guardian with his strong charges of misrepresentation against the DM, and they ran this piece:


Leading climate scientist challenges Mail on Sunday’s use of his research
Mojib Latif denies his research supports theory that current cold weather undermines scientific consensus on global warming

A leading scientist has hit out at misleading newspaper reports that linked his research to claims that the current cold weather undermines the scientific case for manmade global warming.

Mojib Latif, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany, said he “cannot understand” reports that used his research to question the scientific consensus on climate change.

He told the Guardian: “It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming.”

He added: “There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases.”

A report in the Mail on Sunday said that Latif’s results “challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs” and “undermine the standard climate computer models”. Monday’s Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph repeated the claims.

In fact, the DM wrote, “some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.”

That was one more patent falsehood. Exceedingly few people have claimed “the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.” It is nonsense to call that orthodoxy.

Virtually every major model in the IPCC had predicted the Arctic would not be ice free in the summer until the second half of this century, so what’s going on in the Arctic today is a sharp break with “global warming orthodoxy” — since the only “orthodoxy,” if one is going to use that pejorative word, is the IPCC in its periodic literature reviews. Ironically, the DM used the phrase “North Pole” and not “Arctic,” and obviously an ice free North pole by 2013 is a far more likely possibility.

The DM’s reporting in this area was also challenged by NSIDC, which managed to get the Daily Mail to change its utterly false claim that “According to the The National Snow and Ice Data Center, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases.” Yet, they merely changed it to “According to some scientists, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases.” Except, of course, those unnamed “some scientists” don’t exist, the article never identifies them, and Latif certainly isn’t one of them, as he explained right here.

DailyMailGate exploded soon after those two error-riddled pieces when the Daily Mail’s David Rose wrote another sensational piece, “Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified.” That piece had explosive charges against Dr. Murari Lal, a lead author on the IPCC chapter on Asia in the 2007 impacts report. I debunked it here: “EXCLUSIVE: UN scientist refutes Daily Mail claim he said Himalayan glacier error was politically motivated.” Subsequently, Lal leveled very serious charges at Rose in an email to the IPCC that Andy Revkin reprinted at DotEarth:


I am not a Glaciologist but a Climatologist and the statement attributed to me in “Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified” By David Rose in UK Daily Mail on 24th January 2010 has been wrongly placed. I never said this story at any time and strongly condemn the writer for attributing this to me.

More specifically, I never said during my conversation with Rose the following statements being attributed to me:

(a) ‘it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.’

(b) ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.’

(c) ‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’, and

(d) ‘We as authors followed them to the letter,’ he said. ‘Had we received information that undermined the claim, we would have included it.’.

Contrary to the claim by Rose that “Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly,” the Asia Chapter does include this finding under section 10.2.4.2 on page 477.

What I said was “As authors, we had to report only the best available science (inclusive of a select few grey literatures as per the rules of procedure) which is “policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral” and that’s what we collectively did while writing the Asia Chapter. None of the authors in Asia Chapter were Glaciologist and we entirely trusted the findings reported in the WWF 2005 Report and the underlying references as scientifically sound and relevant in the context of climate change impacts in the region.

Regards,

Dr. Murari Lal

1006, Osimo Bldg., Mahagun Mansion-II
1/4 Vaibhavkhand, Indirapuram
Ghaziabad – 201014
Uttar Pradesh, INDIA]

I have interviewed both Lal and Latif, analyzed Latif’s work at length (and published his op-ed here), and talked to other leading scientists about Lal. Again, they seem credible, whereas the DM does not.

Others agree. See the various stories on ScienceBlogs, including Deltoid’s Rosegate scandal grows and James Hrynyshyn on Rosegate.

Note that David Rose denies these charges, but he has posted several misleading comments on Climate Progress that further undermine his credibility.

He wrote here:


I merely quoted him [Latif], accurately, saying that his team’s work suggests that up to half the global warming observed in recent decades was due not to greenhouse gases but long-term ocean temperature cycles.

That is a gross misrepresentation of what Latif’s work shows, as I explained here.

According to Latif, over a short time span, say, the period since 1990, it’s hard to determine exactly what fraction of the temperature change is due to what cause, but Latif does not believe nor ever said what the Daily Mail suggests, which is that you can add those periods together. Remember, for Latif, the periods of slow warming are just ocean cycles temporarily negating the impact of warming. The ocean cycles can make some periods appear to warm faster, and some appear to warm slower, but overall, as he told me, “you can’t miss the long-term warming trend” in the temperature record, which is “driven by the evolution of greenhouse gases.” His work simply “does not allow one to make any inferences about global warming.”

Rose continues on CP about what Latif’s work supposedly means:


Such predictions, I wrote, “challenge some of global warming orthodoxy’s most cherished beliefs”, including the assertion that the north pole will be ice-free in summer by 2013.

Again, it is laughable to say “the assertion that the north pole will be ice-free in summer by 2013″ is one of “global warming orthodoxy’s most cherished beliefs” — though ironically, as written by Rose, it’s entirely possible that this assertion will still prove true, because he has confused “the north pole” with the entire Arctic!

Finally, Rose asserts here:


I did not misquote Dr Lal, and I have verbatim, contemporaneous notes of our conversation. I did not, however, accuse him of knowingly publishing false information, as others have implied.

Oh that is rich. No, Rose did not accuse him of that — but the Daily Mail’s clever falsehood-pushing headline writers created that misimpression, which is why Lal saw fit to correct the record. Go to the original headline and lede here:


Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified

By David Rose
Last updated at 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said….

Unless you knew that Lal was not a “glacier scientist,” you would naturally assume that the headline referred to the first person discussed in the piece: Murari Lal. But this headline actually refers to a glaciologist mentioned halfway down the story. But there is almost no possible way a typical reader could know that.

Most people reading the story would assume that the headline referred to Lal and accused him of publishing data that he knew hadn’t been verified, which, after all, seems consistent with the other charges Rose levels in the piece, charges that Lal has made clear our grotesquely false.

The headline is best described as intentionally deceitful in the light of the Daily Mail’s recent deceitful headline on Jones’ interview.

Given all the charges against them, the Daily Mail should undergo a thorough internal review.

Until then, readers should assume that everything they see in the Daily Mail is untrue and unverified. Scientists should refuse to grant interviews to the paper without a third-party present or an agreement to allow a review of any quotes used.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/15/rosegate-dailymail-error-riddled-articles-misquote-credibility-science/

[CuckingFunt]

Let's assume there is no man-contributed Global Warming, and it's just a giant farce.

Does it really matter?

Which of the following are a bad thing:

Greater energy efficiency
Reduced pollution
Reduced consumption of oil
More efficient public transit

Which is a bad thing?

The Socialists winning, of course.

[Wild Cobra]

But it's Peer-reviewed science!...................or not.
The peer review process is corrupted in this case. Climate science has been incorrectly taught for decades. Those who do the peer reviewing believe the same things. Then there is the corruption of data as well.

Anyone who starts from scratch, and apply all the sciences involved, can see than anthropogenic warming if far lower than claimed. The simplest driver to claculate clearly has the majority of the heating effect increase. The sun has increased in intensity by over 0.2% from 1700 to the peak on the 80's. Simple, undeniable calculations, places the extra heat from the sun at almost 0.6 C of warming. The sun is the source of something like 99.998% of the earths heat. CO2, water, el-nino, etc. are all feedback mechanisms, and the sun is the fuel for all the heat. The oceans absorb more than 90% of the heat they receive, and much of it is released years later, some decades and centuries later.

Don't get me wrong. Greenhouse gasses do have an effect. They simply do not compare to the effect of the sun.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't have a student debt because we don't have to borrow money from banks to pay exorbitant university fees here. You borrow from the government, most degrees cost under $20,000 total, and you pay it back through your taxes. But you wouldn't know that because you didn't actually bother to look into whether or not the Australian tertiary education system is run along the same profit-driven lines as that in the US. Much like your "understanding" of climate science, eh?

Jeez. what a fucking waste of Australian taxpayer dollars.

[RandomGuy]

Global Warming fanatics remind me very much of religious fanatics. It's all about BELIEVING.

Climate change deniers remind me very much of religious fanatics. It's all about BELIEVING

[RandomGuy]

What about the peer-reviewed science?


The peer review process is corrupted in this case.


Cosmored, I also noticed that BadAstronomy actually showed that a lot of the underlying assumptions that most of your links rely on were provably false and based on a lack of knowledge about the phenomena in question.



The point I was trying to make is that the Bad Astronomy site can't be trusted.


You dismiss the peer-review process when it suits you, as producing "tainted" evidence.

Yet you have, in this forum, cited reports that are were neither peer-reviewed, but written by people whose bias was also rather obvious as support for your claims that we are not affecting our climate in the slightest.

One standard of evidence for your opponents, another for things you agree with, eh?

[CosmicCowboy]

Climate change deniers remind me very much of religious fanatics. It's all about BELIEVING

When they run it like a real science I will give it some credence. Even if a short term (200 year) global warming trend is factual (which is highly debatable) There is NO direct link to CO2 and a complete lack of investigation of linkage to other factors such as variations in solar radiation.

These modern day Academic Luddites are ticks on the public trough of grant money and their economic well being is totally dependent on the continued propagation of the fear of man caused climate change.

[RandomGuy]

None of those are bad things if the decision is driven by rational free market economic considerations.

Driving those same decisions by irrational public policy and punitive taxation with Federal bureaucrats picking winners and losers using tax dollars stolen from the losers is NOT a good thing.

The assumption that "the free market" is rational is a flawed one.

The "rational" free market is driving fish populations to extinction world-wide.

The only thing that stops this is the occasional goverment bureaucrat making decsions.

While I would not put forth that governments never make bad decisions (they do), I would, by the same token, never entirely assume that governments were incapable of making good ones.

Along similar lines, free markets are excellent ways of distributing scarce resources, but they ultimately require referees to keep things from getting out of hand, much like professional sports.

[RandomGuy]

There is NO direct link to CO2 and a complete lack of investigation of linkage to other factors such as variations in solar radiation.


Actually the IPCC goes to great lengths to quantify exactly how much of the currently observed warming trends is due to solar radiation.

But... you would have to read it to be able to know that.

[CosmicCowboy]

The assumption that "the free market" is rational is a flawed one.

The "rational" free market is driving fish populations to extinction world-wide.

The only thing that stops this is the occasional goverment bureaucrat making decsions.

While I would not put forth that governments never make bad decisions (they do), I would, by the same token, never entirely assume that governments were incapable of making good ones.

Along similar lines, free markets are excellent ways of distributing scarce resources, but they ultimately require referees to keep things from getting out of hand, much like professional sports.

I'm all for regulating over harvesting of endangered fish populations (which unsustainable fish harvest by it's very nature is NOT a true rational free market response) but I'm totally against governments placing punitive taxes on ALL fish and massively subsidizing tofu manufacturers because some bureaucrat determines that tofu is better for the environment than fish.

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually the IPCC goes to great lengths to quantify exactly how much of the currently observed warming trends is due to solar radiation.

But... you would have to read it to be able to know that.

:lmao

The IPCC report might as well have been researched on Wikipedia for all the actual objective science it contained.

[CosmicCowboy]

For all of you green koolaid drinkers, here is a list complete with corroborating links of all the things that have been caused by global warming.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Have fun!

http://www.moonbattery.com/green-kool-aid.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Actually the IPCC goes to great lengths to quantify exactly how much of the currently observed warming trends is due to solar radiation.

But... you would have to read it to be able to know that.
LOL...

I have read the report.

They were careful to show the radiative forcing of the sun as "direct forcing." Well, the added heating adds to the feedback of the greenhouse gasses. Most of the added heat attributed to CO2 is because of the added solar input, increase the feedback.

Please show me where the IPCC report quantifies "direct" and "indirect" solar forcing. If the "indirect" is there, I missed it.

I say, as a matter of deceit, the intentionally left out the addition of following feedback systems. However, they are quick to attribute more warming of following feedback to CO2.

Can we have some consistency please, if you expect me to believe any of their sciences?

[Wild Cobra]

For all of you green koolaid drinkers, here is a list complete with corroborating links of all the things that have been caused by global warming.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Have fun!

http://www.moonbattery.com/green-kool-aid.jpg
Well, that covers at least 80% of it.

[Wild Cobra]

Climate change deniers remind me very much of religious fanatics. It's all about BELIEVING
But you are wrong. It's the alarmists that have faith in their viewpoint, with no credible science to back them up.

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, that covers at least 80% of it.

:lmao

spoken like a true believer. Item #1 was acne.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually the IPCC goes to great lengths to quantify exactly how much of the currently observed warming trends is due to solar radiation.

But... you would have to read it to be able to know that.
The IPCC assigns 0.12 watts of DIRECT radiative forcing from changes in the sun's irradiance from 1750 to 2005:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/2007AR4TSRadiativeForcing.jpg

Now if I take the NASA simplified Greenhouse Effect model, found in Wikipedia, and make changes for a 0.12 watt decrease for 1750, I get the following... A 0.93 increase if radiative forcing total!

Almost a factor of 8 times greater than the IPCC leads us to believe, all from a calculated 0.18% increase:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Wikigreenhousemodelmodifiedfor1750.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

spoken like a true believer. Item #1 was acne.

Maybe I should start using blue text at times?

I thought it was obvious I was being silly about it.

[xXx]

The IPCC assigns 0.12 watts of DIRECT radiative forcing from changes in the sun's irradiance from 1750 to 2005:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/2007AR4TSRadiativeForcing.jpg

Now if I take the NASA simplified Greenhouse Effect model, found in Wikipedia, and make changes for a 0.12 watt decrease for 1750, I get the following... A 0.93 increase if radiative forcing total!

Almost a factor of 8 times greater than the IPCC leads us to believe, all from a calculated 0.18% increase:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Wikigreenhousemodelmodifiedfor1750.jpg


well duh.

[CosmicCowboy]

Who was measuring solar radiation in 1750? Or in 1950 for that matter...

[Wild Cobra]

Who was measuring solar radiation in 1750? or in 1950 for that matter...
There is a science called "paleoclimatology," which uses various "proxy data" to determine past climates factors. See Lean 2004 (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt).

Here is that data graphed:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/1610to2000solardata.jpg

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Jeez. what a fucking waste of Australian taxpayer dollars.

Yeah, affordable tertiary education for all is such a waste of money. :rolleyes


When they run it like a real science I will give it some credence. Even if a short term (200 year) global warming trend is factual (which is highly debatable) There is NO direct link to CO2 and a complete lack of investigation of linkage to other factors such as variations in solar radiation.

These modern day Academic Luddites are ticks on the public trough of grant money and their economic well being is totally dependent on the continued propagation of the fear of man caused climate change.


:lmao

The IPCC report might as well have been researched on Wikipedia for all the actual objective science it contained.


Who was measuring solar radiation in 1750? Or in 1950 for that matter...

Since you don't even understand the very simplest thing about the science (ie. that we can use proxies to reconstruct climate over hundreds of thousands of years, and have already done so, and that's how we know this isn't a natural event; that there has been plenty of investigation into the sun's effect on the climate included in the reporting... you honestly think that any credible scientists would simply ignore the sun's influence on the climate? What sort of idiot are you? :lmao ), it's pretty clear you haven't read the IPCC reports. They are entirely based on peer-reviewed scientific literature.

How's that opinion of yours holding up?

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, affordable tertiary education for all is such a waste of money. :rolleyes







Since you don't even understand the very simplest thing about the science (ie. that we can use proxies to reconstruct climate over hundreds of thousands of years, and have already done so, and that's how we know this isn't a natural event; that there has been plenty of investigation into the sun's effect on the climate included in the reporting... you honestly think that any credible scientists would simply ignore the sun's influence on the climate? What sort of idiot are you? :lmao ), it's pretty clear you haven't read the IPCC reports. They are entirely based on peer-reviewed scientific literature.

How's that opinion of yours holding up?

Yeah, I'm just stupid since I don't trust the "proxies" used to prove global warming...Lets put a bunch of numbers in the computer and show a trend and then "lose" all our original data used to create the data points...but trust us...our intentions were good...we were just '"sloppy"....

uh huh

I may be stupid, but apparently I'm not the only one. Man caused climate change has NOT been proven and whether you want to admit it or not climate change legislation is dead as a dodo, at least in the US.

[CosmicCowboy]

:tu

UPDATE 1-Texas to challenge US greenhouse gas rules
Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:35pm EST
Related News

By Ed Stoddard

DALLAS, Feb 16 (Reuters) - Texas and several national industry groups on Tuesday filed separate petitions in federal court challenging the government's authority to regulate U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Texas, which leads U.S. states in carbon dioxide emissions due to its heavy concentration of oil refining and other industries, will see a major impact if U.S. mandatory emissions reductions take effect.

In December, the Environmental Protection Agency ruled that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide endanger human health, opening the door for the agency to issue mandatory regulations to reduce them.

Texas said it had filed a petition for review challenging the EPA's "endangerment finding" with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Texas has also asked the EPA to reconsider its ruling.

"The EPA's misguided plan paints a big target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers and the hundreds of thousands of Texans they employ," Texas Gov. Rick Perry said.

The National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association also said on Tuesday they filed a petition challenging the EPA in federal appeals court.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and U.S. iron and steel makers have also signaled they would file lawsuits.

Environmental groups said Texas should focus on building cleaner energy sources instead of filing lawsuits.

"Governor Perry should win an Olympic medal for taking the environment downhill," said Luke Metzger at Environment Texas. "Global warming is the greatest environmental threat facing Texas and the planet and Governor Perry's obstructionism puts the state at great risk."

Conservative Republicans like Perry have been sounding the alarm of job losses in the debate over regulating greenhouse gas emissions -- a hot-button issue at a time of high joblessness and economic uncertainty.

The EPA is threatening to regulate carbon emissions if Congress does not. In June, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a cap and trade bill that would allow industry to buy and trade pollution permits, but the legislation has stalled in the Senate.

President Barack Obama would rather have Congress pass a bill that could provide more protections for industry while also controlling pollution. But he is using the threat of EPA regulation to encourage lawmakers.

Some prominent Senate Democrats have predicted that comprehensive climate control legislation, including a cap-and-trade mechanism, will not pass this year.

[scott]

None of those are bad things if the decision is driven by rational free market economic considerations.

Driving those same decisions by irrational public policy and punitive taxation with Federal bureaucrats picking winners and losers using tax dollars stolen from the losers is NOT a good thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_externality