Reply With Quote
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
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I joined other members of the House of Representatives in supporting and passing legislation that will overhaul our outdated and inefficient energy policy.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
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.
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 do ents 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 do ents 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 do ented 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 do ents 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]r 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.
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!"
But it's Peer-reviewed science!...................or not.
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 ing 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...s-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.
You're a sad old , 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?
http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice...-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.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l-warming.htmlWhy 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)
I love John Stewart. You don't realise that Stewart is taking the piss out of PEOPLE LIKE YOU!?
Every time you talk about anything even semi-serious you own yourself. You have a 100% record on getting it wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/05/ny...l?pagewanted=1
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/..._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.I love John Stewart. You don't realise that Stewart is taking the piss out of PEOPLE LIKE YOU!?
Every time you talk about anything even semi-serious you own yourself. You have a 100% record on getting it wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/05/ny...l?pagewanted=1
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/..._winter_1.html
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 ins ute, 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...licy_Ins ute
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...oseph_D%27Aleo
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...=Anthony_Watts
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...=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/2010/02/1...nt/#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.
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 02-15-2010 at 11:23 PM.
Yes, it is a funny bit, I enjoyed it, thanks.
And yeah, it is Jon. That was just a mistake.
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:
Not. Here’s the BBC interview with Phil Jones that DM is twisting: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
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”).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.
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:
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.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 Ins ute 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.”
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 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.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]
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:
That is a gross misrepresentation of what Latif’s work shows, as I explained 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.
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:
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!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.
Finally, Rose asserts here:
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: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.
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.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….
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/2010/02/1...ility-science/
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 02-15-2010 at 11:09 PM.
Which is a bad thing?
The Socialists winning, of course.
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.
Jeez. what a ing waste of Australian taxpayer dollars.
Climate change deniers remind me very much of religious fanatics. It's all about BELIEVING
What about the peer-reviewed science?You dismiss the peer-review process when it suits you, as producing "tainted" evidence.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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
