PDA

View Full Version : UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning



Eric Johnson
01-21-2010, 09:04 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece

http://tinyurl.com/y9bqy4a

The UN’s top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said yesterday that the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was “poorly substantiated” and resulted from a lapse in standards. “In drafting the paragraph in question the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” the panel said. “The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance.”

-more-

Goose
01-21-2010, 09:28 AM
What a surprise...more lies from the global warming crowd.

I suppose global warming scientists are just like politicians in that you can always tell when they are lying because their lips are moving.

We live in Cuba now.

badbullgator
01-21-2010, 09:44 AM
Don't worry Henry will be here soon to show us some graphs of how this is just taken out of context. I am sure the responce will be that it was only one paragraph and that of is no reason to believe the screw up anything else of lie to further their cause.

Bubba
02-04-2010, 02:09 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/onthenews/?q=MzM1Zjk1YTM0MmU4ODMwNWU3ZDFjY2Y0OTNhNGVjMWQ=

It gets worse....

Rest assured that the all our other research and conclusions are valid though.

Bad science regards

Bubba

Hew
02-04-2010, 04:15 PM
Don't worry Henry will be here soon to show us some graphs of how this is just taken out of context. I know I just can't get enough of the same CO2 graph over and over again.

Henry V
02-05-2010, 12:40 AM
I know I just can't get enough of the same CO2 graph over and over again.
I guess you can't handle the facts.

You know, I can't get enough of all the data, graphs, and scientific evidence that all the deniers post and link to that supports the theory that the earth is not warming and that humans are not a driving force.

Oh, wait, I forgot, there is little credible scientific evidence ever presented here to support this theory and most all the posts started by deniers just take the kill the messenger approach.

Hmmm, kinda reminds me of the tobacco industries strategies but I am sure that the coal and oil industries would not do anything similar, would they??
http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-coal-auto-industry-lobbyist-lied-about-global-warming-for-years-2009-4
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/James-Hoggan-Associates-Inc-US-Oil-Coal-Lobby-are-Killing-Copenhagen-Climate-Deal-1072039.htm
and my favorite
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633532/as_the_world_burns

Henry V
02-05-2010, 12:48 AM
Don't worry Henry will be here soon to show us some graphs of how this is just taken out of context. I am sure the responce will be that it was only one paragraph and that of is no reason to believe the screw up anything else of lie to further their cause.
Yeah your right. Citing one bad estimate in a lengthy report, a couple of emails among a few scientists, or a couple of bad citations among hundreds clearly suggests all the other evidence is flawed.

Please, present some links to peer reviewed scientific evidence for why CO2 has increased the past 140 years, why methane is on the increase, why the oceans are becoming more acidic, why sea level is on the rise, and why the vast majority of glaciers around the world are melting. Or, provide some evidence that any of these is not happening. I am always looking to read more good science related to these topics.

Hew
02-05-2010, 03:36 AM
No CO2 graph?!? WTF?!? :cry::cry::cry:

Uncle Bill
02-06-2010, 04:41 PM
No CO2 graph?!? WTF?!? :cry::cry::cry:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

But hey...I've got just what turns Henry on. We've lambasted your prevaricator-in-chief enuff, Henry. Time to get after a different source of "hoaxs we can be proud of"... the Chair of the UN IPCC.

Of special concern and interest for all is the final paragraph of this column.

UB

Barrasso Calls for U.N. Climate Chief’s Resignation

Thursday, 04 Feb 2010 10:12 PM




WASHINGTON, D.C. –

Today, Senator John Barrasso, R-Wyo., called on Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to resign after revelations of ongoing scientific fraud under Dr. Pachauri’s watch. Senator Barrasso delivered the following statement on the Senate Floor:

“Every day, new scandals emerge about the so called ‘facts’ in the UN reports. The integrity of the data and the integrity of the science have been compromised.

“Concrete action by world leaders is needed. Government delegations of the UN’s general assembly and UN Secretary Moon must pressure Dr. Rajendra Pachauri to step down as head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“It is time to conduct an independent investigation into the conduct of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The scientific data behind these policies must be independently verified.

“Administration policies relating to climate change will cost millions of Americans their jobs. We need to get this right. To continue to rely on these corrupted U.N. Reports is an endorsement of fraudulent behavior. It is a signal to the American people that ideology is more important than their jobs.”

Background:

Recent news reports have highlighted Dr. Rajendra Pachauri’s and the United Nation’s involvement in covering up flawed science:


February 2, 2010, Investor’s Business Daily article, Walter Russell Read, Project Director for Religion and Foreign Policy at the Pew Forum, said “After years in which global warming activists had lectured everyone about the overwhelming nature of the scientific evidence, it turned out that the most prestigious agencies in the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data and making inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, no scientific basis at all.”
On January 30, 2010, the Times of London reported, “Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it.”
On January 24, 2010, the Times of London reported the UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters. Reporter Jonathan Leake wrote, “The United Nations climate panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods,” and the report “had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny.”
Senator Barrasso, a member of both the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee, has continued to call on the international community and the Obama Administration to ensure that our energy policy is based on sound scientific data.

Recently, Barrasso sent letters to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to express his concerns regarding a report concluding the organizations eliminated two-thirds of their temperature monitoring stations around the globe in places that are colder, rural or at higher altitudes beginning in 1990 in order to drive up temperature trend averages.

Henry V
02-07-2010, 11:08 AM
Surprise, surprise, surprise. A congressman from Wyoming is following the oil and gas industry playbook. In the interest of science, please send me a link to the report referenced in your copy and paste.

UB, Just in case you missed this above.
I guess you can't handle the facts.

You know, I can't get enough of all the data, graphs, and scientific evidence that all the deniers post and link to that supports the theory that the earth is not warming and that humans are not a driving force.

Oh, wait, I forgot, there is little credible scientific evidence ever presented here to support this theory and most all the posts started by deniers just take the kill the messenger approach.

Hmmm, kinda reminds me of the tobacco industries strategies but I am sure that the coal and oil industries would not do anything similar, would they??
http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-coal-auto-industry-lobbyist-lied-about-global-warming-for-years-2009-4
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/James-Hoggan-Associates-Inc-US-Oil-Coal-Lobby-are-Killing-Copenhagen-Climate-Deal-1072039.htm
and my favorite
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633532/as_the_world_burns

Uncle Bill
02-07-2010, 12:22 PM
Surprise, surprise, surprise. A congressman from Wyoming is following the oil and gas industry playbook. In the interest of science, please send me a link to the report referenced in your copy and paste.

UB, Just in case you missed this above.


Why would I deny you the opportunity to scavenge around for another 'report'? I don't need any further 'reports' from your obvious phoney crowd of hoaxters and huxters.

BTW, have you been getting in on some of that bread Algore has bilked out of the nation's idiots? Too bad, Henry, you could be wealthier than an oilman by now...certainly, Algore is.:rolleyes:

UB

Uncle Bill
02-07-2010, 12:26 PM
Holy moly, Henry. Lookee here!...another cut and paste just for you. They just seem to keep on comin'.:D

UB

PS I left the URL in so you can easily find this 'report'.



Well, it is finally going mainstream media -- just not yet in the US.

The Sydney Morning Herald is Australia's Newspaper of the Year and this is what they have to say. When you add this to India's withdrawal from the UN IPCC and the media in the UK, AGW is finally collapsing from its own fraudulent science.

The Sydney Morning Herald

Climate alarmists out in the cold

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/climate-alarmists-out-in-the-cold-20100205-nik5.html

(http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/climate-alarmists-out-in-the-cold-20100205-nik5.html)February 6, 2010

As the wheels keep falling off the climate alarmist bandwagon, it's suddenly become fashionable to be a sceptic. Out of the woodwork have crawled all sorts of fair-weather friends.

But where were they when the going was tough, when we were being hammered as Holocaust deniers, planet wreckers, in the pay of the "Big Polluters", bad parents, pariahs, equivalent to murderers? It was pure McCarthyism.

But now, even the most aggressive alarmists have gone quiet or softened their rhetoric and people who sat on the fence have morphed into wise owls.

They still think it's acceptable to mock touring British sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton's protruding eyes, a distressing symptom of his thyroid disease, in an effort to marginalise him as a lunatic, rather than address his criticisms. But, when even the British left-leaning, warmist-friendly Guardian newspaper has begun to investigate the fraud involved in "sexing up" climate change science, it's clear the collapse of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's credibility and the holes in the case for catastrophic man-made climate change can no longer be ignored.

We are witnessing an outbreak of neo-open-mindedness and face-saving from people who brooked no nuance.

The formerly alarmist British chief scientific adviser, John Beddington, has said: "I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper scepticism." Hallelujah.

Australia's Chief Scientist, Professor Penny Sackett, who just three months ago was telling us that we had only five years to stop catastrophic global warming, is similarly less gung-ho these days.

On ABC television's 7.30 Report this week she expressed concern about "a confusion" between the science and the politics of climate change.

"I think that we're seeing more and more a confusion between a political debate, a political debate that needs to happen, it's important to happen, and the discussion of the science. I feel that these two things are being confused and it worries me, actually."

Funny, proponents of the theory of catastrophic man-made climate change never expressed concern about the "confusion", aka politicisation of science, when it was running their way.

Blows to the climate alarm case keep coming, from fraudulent claims about melting glaciers, increased hurricanes and drought, dying Amazon rainforest, disappearing polar bears and the flooding of half of Holland.

The latest, most serious, blow was the revelation this week that an influential paper discounting the so-called urban heat island effect was based on vanished and perhaps fraudulent data from remote Chinese weather stations.

The 1990 paper was co-authored by the besieged director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones and a US colleague, who are now accused of a "cover-up".

Jones, of course, and other leading scientists, have been exposed by their leaked "Climategate" emails, as political partisans who tried to suppress data, subvert freedom of information laws, and blackball journals and scientists who didn't toe the alarmist line.

Meanwhile, revelations pile up about shoddy references used to sex up the IPCC's Nobel Prize-winning Fourth Assessment Report of 2007.

Among them is the bogus claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, based on a speculative interview in a popular science magazine.

The IPCC lead author of the chapter that contained the reference, Murari Lal, told Britain's Mail on Sunday last week that he knew the glacier claim was wrong but included it to put political pressure on world leaders to cut emissions.

"We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."

Because it was in a good cause it was somehow OK for the United Nations' lead climate change body to slant science, cherry-pick data, and base claims on such flimsy references as Greenpeace and WWF propaganda, a student's master's thesis and anecdotes in Climber magazine.

This sort of ''noble cause'' corruption appears to have permeated climate change science, and set back the legitimate cause of fighting pollution. The dishonesty will have only ensured a generation of people will no longer trust environmental warnings.

One of the most significant recent revelations is how influential and embedded were environmental activists such as WWF and Greenpeace. Not only were their publications cited in the 2007 report in at last 24 instances as if they were proper peer-reviewed science, but their staffers were in familiar communication with East Anglia climate researchers, and were regarded apparently as "honest brokers" rather than political lobbyists.

In one email, Alan Markham from WWF writes to climate scientists urging a paper on climate change in Australia be "beefed up".

WWF "would like to see the section on a variability and extreme events beefed up, if possible," Markham wrote in 1999. "I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public splash on this they need something that will get good support from CSIRO scientists."

In another email to East Anglia scientists, WWF's Stephan Singer offers "a few thousand euros" to write a paper about the economic cost of Europe's 2003 heatwave.

They got away with it for a very long time.

Today, the bankruptcy of the climate alarm cause is demonstrated by the fact its highest profile champion is Osama bin Laden. ''Boycott [America] to save yourselves … and your children from climate change", he said in an audiotape released last week.

Rising in the opinion polls, the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, has found himself on the right side of history. He was even able this week to utter the former heresy that "carbon dioxide is an essential trace gas" and "these so-called nasty big polluters are the people who keep the lights on''.

But in the game of musical chairs that politics often is Kevin Rudd has found himself with no place to sit.

Henry V
02-07-2010, 09:37 PM
Interesting. You provide a link that includes the word "opinion" and call it a "report". Then, there is no mention that the fundamental science is wrong. "Scientists think skepticism is good" - Wow what a shocker. The fact that political and scientific debates are usually separate but in this case there is confusion. Another shocker. Still no mention that the fundamental science is wrong or the science is confused. Some temperature data from a single study about a few recording stations may not be right and this is some sort of smoking gun, come on.

I will wait for that report since I could not find it through basic searching. While you clearly and repeatedly find it acceptable to trust the media that prints stuff that only agrees with your point of view (pretty much the definition of sheeple), I like to check the facts and view everything pretty skeptically.

You know, I have been waiting for many months for someone to present evidence for the theory that elevated CO2 and methane levels will not result in global warming/climate change. If you have any of this evidence for these theories, please send links to that too. I already know about the increased water vapor will increase clouds resulting in negative feedback theory and the plants will consume the extra CO2 theory too. Any others?


BTW, have you been getting in on some of that bread Algore has bilked out of the nation's idiots? Too bad, Henry, you could be wealthier than an oilman by now...certainly, Algore is.
Attacking the messenger again.... Maybe you should try something new, but then again your position is bankrupt. Repeatedly insinuating that I have something financially to gain in this is also getting old. You have asked this stupid question before and I have answered directly each time. Go check. Maybe you should have been just as concerned about Senator Barrasso's financial ties when you started this thread.

Could you try presenting some science in your next response? I am betting you won't, so, if you stick to the playbook, you should now just ask me what I am doing to reduce CO2 emissions since I am so concerned about climate change and make sure to mention Al Gore again as it relates to this issue. I have already answered these questions in previous posts too.

Have a great day!

JDogger
02-07-2010, 10:00 PM
Interesting. You provide a link that includes the word "opinion" and call it a "report". Then, there is no mention that the fundamental science is wrong. "Scientists think skepticism is good" - Wow what a shocker. The fact that political and scientific debates are usually separate but in this case there is confusion. Another shocker. Still no mention that the fundamental science is wrong or the science is confused. Some temperature data from a single study about a few recording stations may not be right and this is some sort of smoking gun, come on.

I will wait for that report since I could not find it through basic searching. While you clearly and repeatedly find it acceptable to trust the media that prints stuff that only agrees with your point of view (pretty much the definition of sheeple), I like to check the facts and view everything pretty skeptically.

You know, I have been waiting for many months for someone to present evidence for the theory that elevated CO2 and methane levels will not result in global warming/climate change. If you have any of this evidence for these theories, please send links to that too. I already know about the increased water vapor will increase clouds resulting in negative feedback theory and the plants will consume the extra CO2 theory too. Any others?


Attacking the messenger again.... Maybe you should try something new, but then again your position is bankrupt. Repeatedly insinuating that I have something financially to gain in this is also getting old. You have asked this stupid question before and I have answered directly each time. Go check. Maybe you should have been just as concerned about Senator Barrasso's financial ties when you started this thread.

Could you try presenting some science in your next response? I am betting you won't, so, if you stick to the playbook, you should now just ask me what I am doing to reduce CO2 emissions since I am so concerned about climate change and make sure to mention Al Gore again as it relates to this issue. I have already answered these questions in previous posts too.

Have a great day!

Good post Henry, JD

Hew
02-07-2010, 10:54 PM
What's a playa gotta do up in he-ya to see that CO2 graph one mo time?!? :(:confused::(

JDogger
02-07-2010, 11:07 PM
What's a playa gotta do up in he-ya to see that CO2 graph one mo time?!? :(:confused::(

Well then do a search hew. Ya know how. Ya want Henry to hold yer hand? Again?

Koolaid
02-08-2010, 06:39 AM
About the CO2 thing. Do you guys think that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere or that the data is fabricated?

Hew
02-08-2010, 06:47 AM
About the CO2 thing. Do you guys think that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere or that the data is fabricated?
Henry tells us what we're allowed to think about carbon dioxide, Koolaid. Since he hasn't posted his CO2 graph in at least a week I think we're all kinda just stumbling around hoping that someone will lead us out of the desert of ignorance regarding CO2.

Pete
02-08-2010, 07:32 AM
what I want to know is How they measured CO2 a 140 years ago.

didnt know we were so advanced in 1860
Pete

badbullgator
02-08-2010, 09:07 AM
Yeah your right. Citing one bad estimate in a lengthy report, a couple of emails among a few scientists, or a couple of bad citations among hundreds clearly suggests all the other evidence is flawed.

Please, present some links to peer reviewed scientific evidence for why CO2 has increased the past 140 years, why methane is on the increase, why the oceans are becoming more acidic, why sea level is on the rise, and why the vast majority of glaciers around the world are melting. Or, provide some evidence that any of these is not happening. I am always looking to read more good science related to these topics.

Come on Henry, add them up. This is just one, but this stuff is coming out almost daily now. IT IS FLAWED SCIENCE

badbullgator
02-08-2010, 09:08 AM
About the CO2 thing. Do you guys think that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere or that the data is fabricated?

in a word........YES
Do you think we are the biggest producers of CO2?

Henry V
02-08-2010, 09:10 AM
what I want to know is How they measured CO2 a 140 years ago.

didnt know we were so advanced in 1860
Pete
Try Google.com. I hear that this site lets you type in a question like "How they measured CO2" and it will give you a whole list of sources with relevant answers. I think it has something to do with ice cores. Maybe search "ice core" here for some references too.

Henry V
02-08-2010, 09:24 AM
Come on Henry, add them up. This is just one, but this stuff is coming out almost daily now. IT IS FLAWED SCIENCE
Add what up? Exactly where is the science "flawed"? Take a look at UB's original opinion article. It mentions one study about some temperature data from China being in question. You are buying into the media's portrayal of the controversy and following red herrings.

Here is what the national acadamies of science has to say at http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20091203.html

December 3, 2009 -- Past controversies over historical temperature trends and access to research data have resurfaced amid a stir over old e-mail exchanges among climate scientists that were stolen from a university in the U.K. Two National Research Council reports in particular address these issues. Guiding principles for maintaining the integrity and accessibility of research data were recommended in a report released earlier this year, and a 2006 report examined how much confidence could be placed in historical surface temperature reconstructions. [more]

Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age recommends that researchers -- both publicly and privately funded -- make the data and methods underlying their reported results public in a timely manner, except in unusual cases where there is a compelling reason not to do so. In such cases, researchers should explain why data are being withheld. But the default position should be to share data -- a practice that allows conclusions to be verified, contributes to further scientific advances, and permits the development of beneficial goods and services.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years examined what tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" can tell us about the planet's temperature record, and in particular how much confidence could be placed in a graph that became known as the "hockey stick," which depicted a steep rise in temperatures after a 1,000-year period in the last few decades of the 20th century. The committee that wrote the report found sufficient evidence to say with a high level of confidence that the last decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years. It said less confidence could be placed in reconstructions of temperatures prior to 1600, although proxy data does indicate that many locations are warmer now than they were between A.D. 900 and 1600. Proxy data for periods prior to A.D. 900 are sparse, the report notes.
Sorry, but I'll take the word of the national academies of science. No mention of flawed science.

YardleyLabs
02-08-2010, 09:32 AM
And, just to put the Himalayan glacier error in context, the source report estimated that the glaciers would disappear by 2350. This was erroneously transcribed as 2035 in the IPCC report, a fact disclosed by the IPCC several weeks ago. The fact that land glaciers, which are one of the primary sources of clean water supplies around the world, are shrinking at alarming rates is not in contention and is evidenced by studies from numerous sources including individual glacier observations and satellite measurements.

Koolaid
02-08-2010, 09:33 AM
Henry tells us what we're allowed to think about carbon dioxide, Koolaid. Since he hasn't posted his CO2 graph in at least a week I think we're all kinda just stumbling around hoping that someone will lead us out of the desert of ignorance regarding CO2.

Henry aside, which is it? Or both?

Gerry Clinchy
02-11-2010, 10:17 AM
Wonder what the glacier reports will look like this year :-)

badbullgator
02-12-2010, 08:49 AM
Yeah your right. Citing one bad estimate in a lengthy report, a couple of emails among a few scientists, or a couple of bad citations among hundreds clearly suggests all the other evidence is flawed.

Please, present some links to peer reviewed scientific evidence for why CO2 has increased the past 140 years, why methane is on the increase, why the oceans are becoming more acidic, why sea level is on the rise, and why the vast majority of glaciers around the world are melting. Or, provide some evidence that any of these is not happening. I am always looking to read more good science related to these topics.

Yeah Henry it is just one bad estimate....sure, but one bad estimate or incorrect data, or fabricated, or hidden data seems to come up in almost EVERY paper out there... keep on showing us your CO2 chart and ignore all the “minor slips” that point to very poor and even fabricated research. Peer reviewed means nothing if the "peers" are all doing the same flawed research and have a stake in advancing their agenda. No crisis, no money. Been there done that, I made quite a bit from West Nile Virus and I would never have gotten as far as I have without all the good old AIDs money when I started my profession. These are but a few of the things I referred to in my earlier post.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...-james-hansen/ (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/john-lott-joseph-daleo-climate-change-noaa-james-hansen/)
In a January 29 report, they find that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. The number of stations has dropped from 6000 to 1500.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...e-article.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html)

http://tinyurl.com/y8ku7pm

The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

-more-


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...k/6795858.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6795858.html)


this is by Dr. Neil Frank, a man well known and respected here in Houston:

Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from FloridaStateUniversity in meteorology, was director of the NationalHurricaneCenter (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.


No rise in Co2 Levels in 150 years
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1230184221.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm)


One of my favorites
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...pop_ads=0#t=83 (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=FOLkze-9GcI&pop_ads=0#t=83)


Seems like maybe there has been some falsification by the global warming experts going on and once again many media oulets are not covering the story

Read it here- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lobal-cooling/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/)


And here-
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ets-except-fox (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/24/climategate-totally-ignored-tv-news-outlets-except-fox)
(after reading click on bombshell for some of the actual e-mail content)

Henry V
02-17-2010, 02:57 PM
Yeah Henry it is just one bad estimate....sure, but one bad estimate or incorrect data, or fabricated, or hidden data seems to come up in almost EVERY paper out there... keep on showing us your CO2 chart and ignore all the “minor slips” that point to very poor and even fabricated research. Peer reviewed means nothing if the "peers" are all doing the same flawed research and have a stake in advancing their agenda. No crisis, no money. Been there done that, I made quite a bit from West Nile Virus and I would never have gotten as far as I have without all the good old AIDs money when I started my profession. These are but a few of the things I referred to in my earlier post.

You started this by saying
“…..,but this stuff is coming out daily now. IT IS FLAWED SCIENCE”

It is interesting that you directly compare climate change research to AIDS and West Nile research. These diseases are, in fact, real, right? Is it the research money bandwagon that you missed and have a problem with or the fundamental science of climate change?

Thank you for posting these references that are “but a few of the things” that are supposedly evidence to back your position. Anyway, let’s take this evidence piece by piece (if you are counting, that would be six total items starting back in 2006). If you want to provide additional evidence for the unsubstantiated ramblings in your introductory paragraph above, that would be great too.

Item 1)

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...-james-hansen/ (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/john-lott-joseph-daleo-climate-change-noaa-james-hansen/)
In a January 29 report, they find that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. The number of stations has dropped from 6000 to 1500.

A great explanation and thorough debunking of this non-peer reviewed “report” is at: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/01/kusi-noaa-nasa/
And another great one at: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/dropouts/
Curious how NOAA calculates temperature trends: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/hcntmptrends.php

Also, I thought you might be interested in the organization behind the “report”. It is the “science and policy institute” (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html)

Not exactly an unbiased source of information despite the spin on their website. See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institut e
And also information about the group’s president at: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Ferguson_%28Science_and_Pub lic_Policy_Institute%29
Anyone care to guess who has funded him historically??? It starts with an "E"

Item 2)


[FONT=Verdana]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...e-article.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html)

http://tinyurl.com/y8ku7pm
The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
-more-

This topic was initiated by deniers here in January at http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=50515 and also in February at http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=50094. You will notice that this latter link is for this thread:). I’ll stick with the responses already given and again ask, there is overwhelming empirical evidence that the vast majority of glaciers are losing mass worldwide, if you have any evidence to the contrary post it.
Attacking a reference is what this was about, not science. Interesting that one bad reference apparently has more influence on your point of view than numerous scientific reports and empirical data clearly demonstrating the loss of glaciers.

Item 3)


[FONT=Verdana]http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...k/6795858.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6795858.html)

this is by Dr. Neil Frank, a man well known and respected here in Houston:

Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from FloridaStateUniversity in meteorology, was director of the NationalHurricaneCenter (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.
This topic was initiated by a denier in January at: http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=49383 . There are numerous responses. Mine is #33. He presents no evidence that warming is not happening or that humans are not part of the cause. He just raises uncertainty and cites a discounted “survey” of “scientists” in his editorial. Interesting that this editorial has more influence on your point of view than numerous scientific reports.

Item 4)


No rise in Co2 Levels in 150 years
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1230184221.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm)

This topic was initiated by a denier in January at http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=49406
As presented in the thread, the report does not even make the claim of “no rise in CO2 in 150 years”. Seems like folks ought to read the article or report before they put on a title like “no rise in CO2 in 150 years”. You think?

Item 5)

One of my favorites
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...pop_ads=0#t=83 (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=FOLkze-9GcI&pop_ads=0#t=83)
Nice “daily” update from 2006 from someone who is not a climate scientist. What was that favorite saying of someone else around here something about “lying with statistics” .
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bobcarter.html
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/an_embarrassment_to_australian.php
maybe his temperature graphs came from a nearby discredited colleague down under http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php

Also, nice to see Mr. Carter is on the board of the science and public policy institute (see item 1 above) but I am sure that is just a coincidence. ;)

Item 6)


Seems like maybe there has been some falsification by the global warming experts going on and once again many media oulets are not covering the story

Read it here- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lobal-cooling/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/)



And here-
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ets-except-fox (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/24/climategate-totally-ignored-tv-news-outlets-except-fox)
(after reading click on bombshell for some of the actual e-mail content)
Ahh yes, the smoking gun, the stolen emails from last fall. The big “climategate” scandal. Discussed here before for sure. I’ll direct you to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/an-overview-of-ipccclimategate-criticism.html for a nice review of this issue.
Maybe you missed this too, but it seems that Dr. Mann has now been virtually cleared of all the accusations; see http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/climate-scienti-1.html. And, just curious but I have not seen any peer reviewed scientific publications retracted because of these emails, you?
Glad to see you worked in the “it’s the mainstream media’s fault”. That magic 8 ball must be really handy. Did you borrow one or have your own? ;)

Let's agree to disagree. You can go ahead and pay attention to all the “minor slips” and ignore the fundamental science. I will, just as you say, take the opposite position.