Views and opinions expressed herein by Badbullgator do not necessarily represent the policies or position of RTF. RTF and all of it's subsidiaries can not be held liable for the off centered humor and politically incorrect comments of the author.
Here is what the national acadamies of science has to say at http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20091203.html
Sorry, but I'll take the word of the national academies of science. No mention of flawed science.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.
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.
Wonder what the glacier reports will look like this year
"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim
I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.
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.
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.
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.
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
One of my favorites
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/
(after reading click on bombshell for some of the actual e-mail content)
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.
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/...ntmptrends.php
Also, I thought you might be interested in the organization behind the “report”. It is the “science and policy institute” (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/or...deception.html)
Not exactly an unbiased source of information despite the spin on their website. See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...licy_Institute
And also information about the group’s president at: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...y_Institute%29
Anyone care to guess who has funded him historically??? It starts with an "E"
http://www.retrievertraining.net/for...ad.php?t=50515 and also in February at http://www.retrievertraining.net/for...ad.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.
http://www.retrievertraining.net/for...ad.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.
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?
maybe his temperature graphs came from a nearby discredited colleague down under http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009...ught_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.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...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/sciencein...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.