AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?

[Goober]

Not really. I expect that any large group will make mistakes. Perfection is an impossible ideal to hold. If they don't change their practices that lead to the mistakes, then yes I think they will have lost some credibility. We won't know that for some time now. Next week they will be announcing the authors selected from all of those nominated.

Richard Tol, a prominent economist, a social scientist, and frequent critic of the IPCC says he has been offered a convening lead authorship for the AR5. Another critic, Roger Pielke, Jr. has also apparently been offered a lead author position, but he turned them down. I thought that was strange for someone with so much to say about what is wrong with the process.

Perhaps the fear of being co-opted - many have taken the same position on other controversial topics as they wanted full freedom - not difficult to understand at all.

Here is the article i mentioned earlier.

It?s the Sun, stupid | Full Comment | National Post

 

[Tonington]

The cold weather in Europe over the past almost year is due to a very well known circulation in our atmosphere, it's a called the northern annular mode, or Arctic oscillation. It's been predominantly in the negative phase over that time, and severely so for the winter.

More than that, the running 12 month mean is at the hottest point in recorded history, at a time during a lull in solar activity.

Lastly, even if ( a very big if) it could be shown that Europes cold weather is attributed to the lack of sun spots, how does that make sense when the rest of the planet is smoldering? The planet rotates, so if it's cooling Europe, it should be cooling us as well. It isn't.

 

[captain morgan]

Your the scientist - So I will go with what you say - But did you check on the scientists that study the siuns actions and impact on the earth - How they were afarid to publish contrarian data because why????

Herein lies the problem Goober... no one, including the scientists, really have a solid understanding of the entire system and as such, the only observations that can be made relate to singular items that operate in a much larger system.

The statement that man-made global warming exists is perfectly relevant; the real question lies in determining how impacting it really is.

 

[Tonington]

Herein lies the problem Goober... no one, including the scientists, really have a solid understanding of the entire system and as such, the only observations that can be made relate to singular items that operate in a much larger system..

You can repeat that as many times as you want, it still won't be true.

Scientists know what fingerprints are associated with various forcings on the climate. They have found the fingerprint of an apparent enhanced greenhouse warming in our climate system. They know how much of our emissions are being absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial biosphere. They know what the top of the atmosphere energy imbalance is. They know which spectral bands the outgoing radiation is being trapped at, and they have confirmed satellite observations with ground observations. They can reproduce the current warming with general circulation models (Fig. 9.5a).

They can identify using these models and all the known physics and observations that our activity is making the atmosphere opaque to that outgoing longwave radiation. There is nothing minute about it. It's certainly a smaller signal than the year to year and decade to decade variability, but we have many decades of observations now and the signal stands out crystal clear.

 

[AnnaG]

Your the scientist - So I will go with what you say - But did you check on the scientists that study the siuns actions and impact on the earth - How they were afarid to publish contrarian data because why????

I think the "fear" is a fabrication and there was no fear of reprisal if they spoke up against AGW and the IPCC. Ever since people mentioned global warming there have been others disputing it.

Read the part about "solar variation" here:

Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Avro]

Your the scientist - So I will go with what you say - But did you check on the scientists that study the siuns actions and impact on the earth - How they were afarid to publish contrarian data because why????

Did they get death threats like climatologists have?

death threats

I doubt it.

Plus...

YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Solar Schmolar

 

[AnnaG]

Herein lies the problem Goober... no one, including the scientists, really have a solid understanding of the entire system and as such, the only observations that can be made relate to singular items that operate in a much larger system.

The statement that man-made global warming exists is perfectly relevant; the real question lies in determining how impacting it really is.

And yet a lot of people are perfectly willing to swallow the hype about conspiracy and denials and only be suspicious of scientists comments. In a way it's really funny; in another it's extremely pathetic; and either way it says a lot about their depth of thought and the mental agility of them to contort things.

 

[Avro]

Is Global Warming really caused by Coke and Pepsi?

http://friendsofginandtonic.org/files/category-deep-space.html
The Climate Scum reports a 6-year old retard from Texas disproving global warming. Here in Calgary, yet another retard of unknown age (but certainly not older than 6) proves that the intake of Coke and Pepsi changes the global weather (not climate) - in the Calgary Herald.

FoGT begs to differ: Coke and Pepsi containers, like the oceans, constitute carbon storage volumes. The CO2 emitted by the Alberta Oil Sands, for example, can be sequestered in cans and bottles, and stored in supermarkets, bars, and restaurants. This is much cheaper than storing the CO2 at the bottom of the oceans. And no taxpayer’s money is wasted as it is done by private initiative. New carbon storage space is created when the old CO2 stock has been consumed by people. The consumed CO2, together with the large amounts of added sugar, is being converted to natural body fat. As an initial result, the environment remains healthy, global warming is controlled, and we are getting fatter - which starts a positive feedback: more body fat means less heating required, thus less CO2 emitted etc. A new ice age is imminent, which will naturally produce ice for cooling the sugary sodas, which means less refrigeration needed, hence fewer CO2 emissions and thus even further global cooling and more fattening. This explains the obesity of the people portrayed in the oil paintings that prove the little ice age.

Stop this cooling-fattening craze - keep the poles ice free - drink tap water! Or lowly carbonated, well-tempered Gin & Tonic. Cheers!

 

[Tonington]

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider | Full Comment | National Post

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”
Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hilme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.
Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.


Read more: The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider | Full Comment | National Post

Also please note that Scientists that study the sun are now coming out - prior to the IPCC scandal many were afraid of retaliation from other scientists and scientific organizations and those that control research funds-

Their studies are showing the suns impact on the temperature over the centuries has been massive.

Not sure if anyone posted this prior or not - But is tell a lot when scientists state that prior to this they were scared shztless to publish data.

*shocker*

Mike Hulme has replied on his website to the phoney claims attributed to him by Lawrence Soloman, in his National Post article that you linked to Goober.

Read it here:
http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Correcting-reports-of-the-PiPG-paper.pdf

Shameful to say the least.

Of Soloman? Yup, but I've gotten used to his shameless editorializing.

You can read a further clarification by Hulme at this link:
http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Further-Clarification-of-my-Remarks.pdf

Unfortunately, this is par for the course. Soloman is being sued by another climatologist, Andrew Weaver, along with the National Post and a few other so-called journalists/editors for defamation/libel.

 

[captain morgan]

And yet a lot of people are perfectly willing to swallow the hype about conspiracy and denials and only be suspicious of scientists comments. In a way it's really funny; in another it's extremely pathetic; and either way it says a lot about their depth of thought and the mental agility of them to contort things.

Herein lies the crux of the problem Anna. Too many people are swallowing too many agenda-driven messages... Who's right/wrong? Who really knows?

To suggest that we (as a community or scientific society) can state one way or the other is, well, it's arrogant (either way).

That's all I'm really saying

 

[Avro]

Herein lies the crux of the problem Anna. Too many people are swallowing too many agenda-driven messages... Who's right/wrong? Who really knows?

To suggest that we (as a community or scientific society) can state one way or the other is, well, it's arrogant (either way).

That's all I'm really saying

Nobody here has ever stated on this site, to my knowledge, that they buy into the agenda of politicians like Gore.

Everyone sticks to the science because that's where the consensous is.

Having said that the denial crowd sure do hang on every word guys like Monckton have to say and are way more apt to make this a political issue rather a scientific issue....which is what it is.

 

[Tonington]

Agenda driven messages? Isn't that kind of a given? If you're trying to communicate a message, there obviously must be a reason for it, a goal. That's an agenda.

At some point, the science has to inform the policy. Anyone who believes we can't have informed policy makers on this issue, simply hasn't read enough of the science. It's out there, in plain view.

 

[Avro]

Oreskes, Conway exposing the Merchants of Doubt

Naomi Oreskes, professor of history and science studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Erik Conway, an historian at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab are stumping about these days in support of their excellent new book, Merchants of Doubt.
As you might expect from someone with Oreskes' exemplary background, Merchants is a painstakingly careful review of the climate change denial campaign. She and Conway have traced the whole, odious action back to the late 1980s and the early work of the George C. Marshall Institute, which they aregue convincingly was ground zero for the denial industry.
For a taste quick taste of their position, check this CNN feature.

 

[AnnaG]

Herein lies the crux of the problem Anna. Too many people are swallowing too many agenda-driven messages... Who's right/wrong? Who really knows?

No-one knows for sure, but the indications look pretty clear.

To suggest that we (as a community or scientific society) can state one way or the other is, well, it's arrogant (either way).

That's all I'm really saying

I don't disagree.

 

[Avro]

YouTube - Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack: The Wrap

Eh Wot!

YouTube - Cricket Chirping

Gee whiz....sure is quiet in here.

Thought the denialists would jump all over this thread.

 

[Tonington]

Leakegate: a retraction

Oh that darned IPCC, making up stuff about Amazon rainforest....err actually no, they didn't, and now the Sunday Times in the UK has been forced to retract an article by Jonathon Leake, perhaps the worst reporter in the world.

Scan of the retraction here:

http://www.realclimate.org/docs/ST_Correction_img007%5B1%5D.jpg

The Sunday Times and the IPCC: Correction

The article "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim" (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an "unsubstantiated claim" that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for WWF by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as "green campaigners" with "little scientific expertise." The article also stated that the authors' research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.

In fact, the IPCC's Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure had, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that Mr Rowell is an experienced environmental journalist and that Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.

The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC's use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports' statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change.

In addition, the article stated that Dr Lewis' concern at the IPCC's use of reports by environmental campaign groups related to the prospect of those reports being biased in their conclusions. We accept that Dr Lewis holds no such view - rather, he was concerned that the use of non-peer-reviewed sources risks creating the perception of bias and unnecessary controversy, which is unhelpful in advancing the public's understanding of the science of climate change. A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this.

The original article to which this correction refers has been removed​

 

[Avro]

Misunderestimating the Urban Heat Island Effect!

The 'urban heat island' (UHI) effect refers to the fact that many temperature measurement sites are located in cities. These locations are generally warmer than the surrounding countryside. This effect is maximised in the Republican Bible Belt of the continental United States owing to additional heat-generating factors: steaming anger expressed in townhall meetings, overheated unprotected sex between unmarried teenagers, friction by fingers gliding along rosaries during extended prayer, overusage of large pickup trucks in drive throughs, and the absorption of solar radiation by unprotected human necks. Many of the surface measurement stations are located improperly, enhancing this effect and hence falsifying the global temperature record of the United States. The above picture was taken in Marysville, Ca. (near Jesustown).

In contrast, wamist believers believe that the urban heat island effect does not add to global temperature anomalies, based again not on blog science but on the peer-reviewed literature controlled and manipulated by world socialism. We are still searching for the opinion column in the 'National Post' that proves this science wrong. Unfortunately, we have not found the copy yet in our blue recycling bin. Most of our skepticism stems from the US surface station record because that is where most of us Republicans live: in the 2% of the world's surface that is covered by the U.S. (excluding occupied territories such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Japan, and Heidelberg). Global warming has always been a smalltown issue: the smaller the mind town, the globaller the warming (or the changier the climate, as Frank Luntz would have said in his days). It is concluded that the placement of measurement stations should be managed anally.

The picture below illustrates the UHI at a smaller scale and advises against measurement station placement within the human body, which generates the equivalent of a black hole in the UHI misoverestimate. Nevertheless, the UN socialist world government claims that, after the corrections already inherent in the record, the UHI makes essentially no difference as the surface temperatures are consistent with the satellite temperatures that are not affected by cities.
​

 

[Avro]

Stanford Study Exposes Lack of Credibility and Expertise Among Climate Skeptics

A study by Stanford University researchers examining expert credibility in climate change has confirmed that climate skeptics and contrarians within the scientific community comprise at best 3% of the field, and are “vastly overshadowed” in expertise by their colleagues who agree that manmade climate change is real.

As readers of DeSmogBlog know well, the credibility of climate science and scientists has come under attack in recent months. In the wake of the Climategate episode –portrayed in the right wing media as a scandalous cover-up while independent investigations found no evidence calling into question the integrity of climate science – skeptics have loudly argued that the public shouldn’t trust the overwhelming consensus among scientists that man-made climate change is real.

Flipping that faulty assertion on its head, this new Stanford study, published today in the highly-regarded journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, provides even more reason for the public to scrutinize the credibility of the skeptics and contrarians themselves, showing them to possess less direct expertise and far fewer published works in the climate science literature than colleagues who agree with the consensus view.

Examining a group of 1,372 climate researchers, their publications and the number of times their work is cited by peers in related studies, the Stanford researchers found that:

1) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of [man-made climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and 2) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of [man-made climate change] are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”

The authors found that:
“the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence of [anthropogenic climate change] vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians.”

Reviews of the scientific literature and surveys of climate scientists “indicate striking agreement with the primary conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),” according to the study.

But you would hardly know that from watching Fox News or reading mainstream media coverage of climate change lately.

Using Climategate and the juvenile theatrics of a handful of Republican politicians as fuel, climate deniers have waged a fierce media campaign to confuse the public in recent months, an effort that poll results in the U.S. indicate had a negative impact on public understanding of climate change and recognition of the urgent need to address it.

While skeptics have been given plenty of oxygen on talk radio and TV lately, they remain remarkably quiet in the annals of peer-reviewed literature. Reams of data and papers have been published in the best scientific journals documenting and supporting the consensus view that humans have altered the climate in potentially catastrophic ways.
In contrast, evidence to support the views of contrarians and skeptics remains mostly unrecognized and unpublished in scientific journals. That is not an indication that the peer-review process is somehow corrupt, as some skeptics contend, but rather a clear sign that skeptics have failed to present to their peers any credible evidence to support their contrary opinions.

It is interesting to note that the study, which was funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and Stanford University, did not look at the issue of industry funding or conflicts of interest among the skeptics identified in the report. Even without taking those important factors into account, the Stanford researchers demonstrate a clear lack of credibility among skeptics who doubt man-made climate change. The vast majority of skeptics who signed onto joint statements denying man-made climate change “have not published extensively in the peer-reviewed climate literature,” the study found.

This study from Stanford has documented yet again the total lack of credibility and expertise among climate skeptics, yet as long as Fox News and talk radio exist, the public will continue to be duped into the false assumption that there is doubt among the scientific community on this issue.

While President Obama has pledged to craft policy based on the best science available and to consult with the most credible experts, climate skeptics have used biased media outlets and a bullhorn to sow doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change. That dangerous distraction enables lawmakers to avoid making science-based policy decisions, delaying action on climate change and fostering continued dependence on dirty energy sources.
For the full details, read the attached study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

[Avro]

Christopher Monckton's Lies Exposed (Again) By The Guardian

In yet another brutal take-down of 'Lord' Christopher Monckton's claims to royalty and relevance, Bob Ward at The Guardian exposes the fabrications Monckton has whipped up to endear Margaret Thatcher fans to his own 'work' as a climate skeptic.
Ward's piece, "Thatcher becomes latest recruit in Monckton's climate sceptic campaign," illustrates again the main point that DeSmogBlog readers know all too well - that climate denialism is about politics, not science.
Ward, who is policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science, was inspired to write the piece after reading Monckton's outlandish claims in a blog posted on Anthony Watts' blog.

In his guest blog on WattsUpWithThat, Monckton claims that, among all the advisers to Margaret Thatcher in the mid-80s, he was "the only one who knew any science."

Monckton is not a scientist by any stretch, he holds a journalism degree. Apart from his recent paid speeches at tea parties and climate conferences as an anti-science crusader, his career in daily news and tabloid journalism has had nothing to do with science. But that hasn't stopped him from pretending to be one. He's like the fake doctor in the 1940's advertisements who really, really wants you to trust him that cigarettes are safe, and it's okay to spray DDT on your kids.

Monckton then goes on to suggest that "it was I who – on the prime minister's behalf – kept a weather eye on the official science advisers to the government, from the chief scientific adviser downward."
Bob Ward reports in the Guardian:
"This revelation might be news to Lady Thatcher. On page 640 of her 1993 autobiography Margaret Thatcher: The Downing Street Years, the former prime minister describes how she grappled with the issue of climate change, referring only to "George Guise, who advised me on science in the policy unit". Indeed, given Monckton's purportedly crucial role, it seems to be heartless ingratitude from the Iron Lady that she does not find room to mention him anywhere in the 914-page volume on her years as prime minister."
So it seems that Christopher Monckton's claims over all these years that he was a key policy advisor to Thatcher are pretty disingenuous. That's not surprising from a character who regularly embellishes his non-voting non-recognized title of 'Lord' in the House of Commons. Luckily for Monckton, "it is not in itself an offence to pretend to be a member of the House." Now that he's figured that out, perhaps he'll start calling himself Prime Minister for the heck of it.

To clarify his role in Thatcher's government, it seems Monckton started out in the early '80s as a scribe taking minutes at meetings of a group loosely associated with Thatcher, then wrote a paper that supposedly endeared him to Downing Street, then magically became a key policy advisor a few years hence.

But if that claim were true - that Monckton was so dear an advisor to Thatcher - why would he have left such an important post in 1986 to take an assistant editor position at a (now defunct) tabloid newspaper?
As is so often the case with Christopher Monckton, the facts just don't ever seem to back up his version of events.

What will the good 'Lord' dream up next?

 

[Avro]

UK Sunday Times Retracts Bogus ‘Amazongate’ Story, Apologizes to Simon Lewis

Ending a dispute that has dragged on for months, London newspaper The Sunday Times has finally retracted and apologized for an article filled with blatant misinformation and smears against the IPCC and climate researchers that it ran in January, creating a nontroversy which deniers tried to label “Amazongate.”
RealClimate.org more accurately dubbed the episode “Leakegate” after the Times' reporter Jonathan Leake, who wrote the article in question.

The Times published a lengthy correction to the bogus article and disappeared the original from its website.

Since the bogus article ran in January, scientists and researchers who study the Amazon have tried to correct the misinformation it spread. Chief among them was Dr. Simon Lewis, an expert on rain forests at the University of Leeds, who filed a 30-page complaint against The Sunday Times with the UK Press Complaints Commission in March. Lewis alleged that the paper had mangled his quotes, which ended up far from the remarks he actually made in interviews with the reporter, and that the paper had published “inaccurate, misleading or distorted information” about climate change in the article.

Lewis maintains that the reporter read him a version of the piece over the phone that Lewis found agreeable, but then the Times published a vastly different article skewed to fit the Times’ anti-science, denialist editorial line, completely ignoring the scientific facts underpinning the IPCC’s statements about the Amazon.

The Sunday Times acknowledged in its correction/retraction that the IPCC’s conclusion about the Amazon was supported by peer-reviewed science, and that it erred in presenting Dr. Lewis’s comments as disputing the science behind claims about the vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change.

The retraction notes:
“A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this.”

When Dr. Lewis heard the news, he wrote to several outlets, “I welcome the Sunday Times’ apology.”

ClimateProgress published more of Lewis’s reaction:
“The public’s understanding of science relies on scientists having frank discussions with journalists, who then responsibly report what was said. If reporting is misleading then many scientists will disengage, which will mean that the public get more opinion and less careful scientific assessments. This is extremely dangerous when we face serious environmental problems, like climate change, which require widespread scientific understanding to enable wise political responses to be formulated and enacted.”

It is worth pondering what might have happened if Simon Lewis had chosen not to file his complaint. Readers of the Sunday Times could have easily remained confused and misled on this subject, potentially losing trust in the IPCC scientific community.

Lewis is to be commended for seeing this through, earning what amounts to a total retraction of Leake’s article and setting the record straight. It isn’t every day that climate misinformation gets corrected in such a thorough manner. This is a huge win for scientific integrity and accuracy in reporting.

“If reporting is misleading then many scientists will disengage, which will mean that the public get more opinion and less careful scientific assessments,” Lewis wrote in response to hearing the news about the correction.

But imagine if the article had been published in its original, unadulterated form – the version that Leake initially read to Lewis over the phone? The misinformation and distortions would never have reached the public, the deniers would have been denied their long-winded gloating over the inaccurate version, and perhaps there would be less confusion over this entire issue.

Just as with the so-called “Climategate” episode, there was no conspiracy here, no reason whatsoever to question the vast, global body of scientific knowledge about climate change.

But until the media – especially biased outlets like the Sunday Times and FOX News – learn to report on climate science matters responsibly, the public is destined to remain confused about this important issue.

It should not take someone like Simon Lewis pressing the matter after the fact to correct the record. It should be inherent in these newsrooms’ journalistic standards that nothing like this ever happen in the first place.