Global warming slowing down??

Red Nissan

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, that's just... sorry, no, I don't have polite words for how silly that sentence was. You're just saying that we can't know what happened in the past because if we went back to it, we'd definitely see something utterly different to what we currently believe we'd see. .

Not quite. We'd SEE EXACTLY the same as today except WORSE, and today we are blaming the industrial revolution of the past two hundred years and continuing.

There are and were more powerful events that man had nothing to do with.

Red Nissan

Sparks wrote: »

I'm not sure that's a sound basis for your argument.

You summed up that part perfectly, we either do have a crisis or we don't. We either CAN do something about it or we can't.

I believe we are in crisis, but totally reject the notion that if I can persuade you to stop farting for a day, I can fart all I like during that day.

As I said pull the other one.

Coles

I'm just going to back away slowly from this thread...

Sparks

Red Nissan wrote: »

Not quite. We'd SEE EXACTLY the same as today except WORSE, and today we are blaming the industrial revolution of the past two hundred years and continuing.

So there are no records, but you know what we'd see.

Erm... how, exactly?

Sparks

Red Nissan wrote: »

You summed up that part perfectly, we either do have a crisis or we don't. We either CAN do something about it or we can't.

Those two aren't strictly speaking linked.
We do have a crisis; we currently aren't doing much about it; we technically could in the same way that we technically could go to the moon in 1969 (ie. it's possible with sufficient resources, but not trivial in any sense of the word and getting politicians to agree to devote the necessary resources usually takes some very pointy motivation indeed).

I believe we are in crisis, but totally reject the notion that if I can persuade you to stop farting for a day, I can fart all I like during that day.
As I said pull the other one.

Could you say that to the politicians instead of the climatologists though? Because that's a fair point if you're making it about carbon credits and the other schemes dreamt up by politicians, but it's a pretty weak argument to make to say climate change isn't real and/or isn't man-made.

Red Nissan

Sparks wrote: »

So there are no records, but you know what we'd see. Erm... how, exactly?

Already mentioned, this is now only being driven in a circle.

catallus

Nature started the war for survival and now she wants to quit, just because she's losing???? Pah!

Lies, lies, lies, and damned statistics.

Sparks

Red Nissan wrote: »

Already mentioned, this is now only being driven in a circle.

Ah, no.
I'm saying that we have records that tell us what we'd find in the atmosphere if we carried out your thought experiment - particulate deposits in ice cores, that sort of thing - and you've been saying no, that's wrong, we'd find things much worse than they are today.

Thing is, we can't both be right because not one of the records we do have has ever recorded CO2 levels this high during the past 15 million years or so and the last time they were this high, temperatures were about five degrees warmer and the ocean level was a good 30 metres higher than today.

Red Nissan

Sparks wrote: »

but it's a pretty weak argument to make to say climate change isn't real and/or isn't man-made.

This is me.

Climate change is happening, we are leaving the Ice Age, we are entering a period where we will have no ice on the surface of the planet. This is happening, man cannot stop this.

This may well be the extinction of mankind.

Man's presence on this planet is fostered by two things, the Magnetic Fields protecting the surface residents from lethal radiation, and the current position of the floating land masses which fosters weather engines which keeps this planet in a habitable threshold.

We are also moving out of this threshold, albeit quite slowly.

As long as we have weather we'll be grand, so we will get a bit wetter, a bit warmer and the food bowls will change as they did previously so too will the economic power shift, this is happening, this is real and it presents a real challenge for mankind.

We are not making this happen.

Sparks

Red Nissan wrote: »

man cannot stop this.

There's an old adage amongst engineers which advises those who would say "this cannot be done" to step to one side before speaking to avoid being run down by those doing it...

We are not making this happen.

Well, you think that, but when 97% of the world's climatologists all specifically agree that mankind is causing this, I'm just gonna go with their evidence-based statements. If you have evidence that contradicts those 97%... well, why haven't you published yet? You'd be famous...

Red Nissan

Sparks wrote: »

Well, you think that, but when 97% of the world's climatologists all specifically agree that mankind is causing this, I'm just gonna go with their evidence-based statements. If you have evidence that contradicts those 97%... well, why haven't you published yet? You'd be famous...

I've no personal evidence, I do collate other published reports and documentaries and I form my own opinion.

Evidence is there for interpretation, the evidence presented today, could have been presented in the past, repeatedly in the past over billions of years, I simply don't buy the man made aspects, I'd be more like Noah and build my own Arc and get to like seafood.

Akrasia

Red Nissan wrote: »

I've no personal evidence, I do collate other published reports and documentaries and I form my own opinion.

Evidence is there for interpretation, the evidence presented today, could have been presented in the past, repeatedly in the past over billions of years, I simply don't buy the man made aspects, I'd be more like Noah and build my own Arc and get to like seafood.

Which part of the greenhouse effect do you not accept?

Weathering

Coles wrote: »

Around 1999-2000 I can distinctly remember reading a paper that stated that the trend in warming would slow for 15-20 years before emerging stronger again.

It's interesting that the climate change deniers only remember someone making off-the-cuff comments about snowballs. :rolleyes:

Seeing as you can "Distinctly" remember perhaps you can link a source from 99/00 stating as such?

If you cared to read the thread there was a lot more to it that snow, it was an example of scaremongering gone wrong. If you feel the need to try and dumb it down before making your point then your point obviously wasn't up to much

Nabber

A tax on a theory is wrong.
Green tax can be likened to a tax to raise money for an asteroid defense.

The climate changes, it changed before humans, it will change after humans.

Gathering records that go back 100 years, to make predictions on something that has been fluctuating for billions of years and claiming we did it, that is just preposterous in any situation. There is no defined line on where the climate should be. We live by seasons and averages. Averages have highs and lows.
It has to be proven that humans are causing this, at the moment it is a theory, based on graphs of CO2 releases of humans and global averages. But the problem arises were the averages dip, yet as the only fact of this whole matter remains constant is we are releasing more CO2 everyday. We hear another theory to back up the 'slowdown' or 'cool averages'


My biggest gripe beside the green taxes, no weather event now is NOT the cause of manmade global warming. Big storm in Galway? Get used to it, global warming will have them rolling in every second month. Slight drought in the midlands, you better believe it, AGW will have you high and dry every year. Some island that you never heard of got 20cm of rain in 2 hours, sit back my friend, because AGW stops at nothing.....

Why can't meteorologists ever say, with the right conditions, this can be expected, but these conditions are rare, but not impossible.


Rant over

Godge

Climate change has always happened.

Before we were here, it was driven by other forces.

We are now adding our influence to those forces.

We are making a difference over a timespan of maybe 150 years. Can we make a difference to climate change over a timespan of 5,000 years? yet alone 50,000 years?

How long has the earth been habital for man? How long will it remain so, that is the question?

Oneiric 3

Sparks wrote: »

it's a pretty weak argument to make to say climate change isn't real and/or isn't man-made.

Asking from an objective standpoint but what if global warming/climate change is not/partially/entirely man-made though? Does it actually really matter? Are we adding more weight to a vague, theoretical concept that has little or no practical importance in everyday life than is warranted?

Coles wrote: »

climate change deniers

This seems to be a popular swipe by middle-man type advocates of AGW to somehow dismiss and belittle those that may have an alternative view on climate. Yet I not heard any climate scientist coming out with personal remarks like this. And if I was to, I would sincerely question their academic credentials and the institution/s they earned them in.

markfla

how I see it is, we were warned about increases in Hurricanes, tornadoes etc. and severe storms when the fact of the matter is there has been no observable increase in the last decade of these. In fact hurricanes have fallen off and there's no increase in tornadoes although the record on these is patchy before the satellite era. The increase in rain over these isle has abated and been attributed to the north Atlantic oscillation. Global sea ice the last two years has been on the increase...I understand variability can happen on a trend over time but we are being told the ocean is taking the heat...why the increae in sea ice. I'm very very far from an expert but from I've been picking up recently I've been getting sceptical of the whole thing not because I think there is a big political conspiracy, I just think we may have got it wrong? I had read up on sudden strat warming, geopotential height differences and affects on the jet stream, albedo effects, multi decadal oscillations etc. in a genuine effort to understand GW but maybe there is something we're missing going on what's being observed.

Sparks

Red Nissan wrote: »

Evidence is there for interpretation, the evidence presented today, could have been presented in the past, repeatedly in the past over billions of years

Yes, but every time that the evidence we see today is seen in the past, the point we're currently standing on is under 30 metres of ocean (and we have to go back 15 million years just to find the last occurrence of this).

I simply don't buy the man made aspects

So your argument against decades of evidence-based research and a consensus of 97% of the scientists who spend their professional lives studying this is that "you don't buy it".

Rather curious to how you'd prove the IPCC wrong when they say "nuh uh"...

Nabber wrote: »

A tax on a theory is wrong.

Pretty sure we don't tax theories.
But if you mean a tax levied to fund public projects based on scientific theory, then you must be really annoyed at how your taxes fund, for one of many many many examples, the healthcare system (unless you thought the germ theory of disease wasn't a theory).

Green tax can be likened to a tax to raise money for an asteroid defense.

I'm curious, is it asteroids you think don't exist or climate change?
(BTW, you already pay a tax to raise money for an asteroid defence, albeit at a remove - the European Space Agency has a Near Earth Orbit programme or two for tracking and planning for diversion and study)

The climate changes, it changed before humans, it will change after humans.

Definitely. It's just that we're driving this change.

Gathering records that go back 100 years

You're missing some zeros there. Borehole data goes back 500 years, various organic proxy records go back up to two thousand years, and Antarctic ice core data goes back about 100,000 years.

to make predictions on something that has been fluctuating for billions of years and claiming we did it, that is just preposterous in any situation.

Well, (a) that's not what's happening and (b) no, it just wouldn't be.

There is no defined line on where the climate should be. We live by seasons and averages. Averages have highs and lows.

You're forgetting your George Carlin. You're right, there's no defined line where the climate should be. The planet is fine, it's survived worse than us. It's people who're ****ed.

It has to be proven that humans are causing this, at the moment it is a theory

So (a) it has been proven insofar as any physical theory can be;
and (b) if you start saying "oh, it's just a theory" you're going to sound a lot like the young earth creationists who want evolution removed from school textbooks because "it's just a theory". And for the same reasons and with the same glaring errors, like your use of the word theory:

My biggest gripe beside the green taxes

Quick question - if your biggest gripe with the IPCC conclusions is the green taxes, at what point did you come by the belief that scientists have the legal authority (or for that matter, any hope at all) of designing and successfully introducing new taxes, while somehow managing to not introduce a tax that added a few zeros to the annual research budgets of every nation?
I mean, that's like believing that if you give a toddler a four kilo bucket of jelly beans that they'll just eat ten or twelve beans and reseal the bucket...

no weather event now is NOT the cause of manmade global warming.

According to Fox News and the tabloids.
Ask the meterologists however, and they'll put their head in their hands and get on with explaining in a tired, oh so tired voice that weather is not climate and that it would take years of observations of trends before you could say conclusively that weather event X was definitely caused by climate change, but that that doesn't mean that those trends don't exist.

Tabloids however, are too busy raising advertising revenue to do this, so they'll tell you that climate change is causing everything from today's rain to tomorrow's locust plague and then show you some breasts on page three to get you to not ask too many questions.

I don't think you can lay that at the IPCC's doorstep though, except in a flaming dog poop sort of way.

Godge wrote: »

We are making a difference over a timespan of maybe 150 years. Can we make a difference to climate change over a timespan of 5,000 years? yet alone 50,000 years?

Dunno, but we've managed it over a timespan of about 100 years so far...

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Asking from an objective standpoint but what if global warming/climate change is not/partially/entirely man-made though?

That was a valid question twenty years ago, not so much today because it's been settled.

Does it actually really matter?

Yes.

Are we adding more weight to a vague, theoretical concept that has little or no practical importance in everyday life than is warranted?

Think you might find you've understated its importance. It's not just a case of crying because your grandkids won't ever see a coral reef, it's the economic impact of the change that's going to wallop us. Just because it'll hit as you're retiring (if you're in your 30s now) and it's your kids who'll take the first solid kick in the fork doesn't mean that the impact won't be real -- it just means that there's a long enough gap between being able to do something to avert it and being walloped by it that no politician would ever be able to sell the cost of aversion as being worth it.

This seems to be a popular swipe by middle-man type advocates of AGW to somehow dismiss and belittle those that may have an alternative view on climate. Yet I not heard any climate scientist coming out with personal remarks like this.

Are you kidding?

And if I was to, I would sincerely question their academic credentials and the institution/s they earned them in.

Ah, right, I see. So if they don't comment on climate change denial then climate change isn't happening and if they do comment on it, their professional qualifications are suspect?

Quick question, what are your professional qualifications? I mean, you're the one arguing that 97% of the world's climatologists are wrong...

markfla wrote: »

how I see it is, we were warned about increases in Hurricanes, tornadoes etc. and severe storms when the fact of the matter is there has been no observable increase in the last decade of these.

Well, that's just wrong about hurricanes and tropical storms:

And the power in those storms is also increasing and seems correlated to sea surface temperature:


Now you might say correlation is not causation, but the climatologists and meteorologists said it before you did; but those are observations, not predictions, so even if you disagree with what's causing them, you don't get to say they're not happening...

Global sea ice the last two years has been on the increase

Er, no, it hasn't, and two years is too short to be looking at anyway. Yes, there's a trend for Arctic ice to fall and Antarctic ice to rise but they don't cancel out:



Worse yet, you're talking sea ice and ignoring land ice:







And worse yet, while it's too early to be sure, it looks like the IPCC was overly conservative about it:

FWVT

What about since 2007? The 2005 season really bumps up those averages, but what about the rake of lower years since?

It's the same with global temperature. A lot of the graphs that people post stop at 1997 or the early 2000s...conveniently.

Sparks

FWVT wrote: »

What about since 2007? The 2005 season really bumps up those averages, but what about the rake of lower years since?

Haven't found 2012 and 2013, but 2007-2011 is just more of the same ten-year trend:

Lucreto

Great read Sparks

I would just have said watchthe last 2 or 3 episodes Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

FWVT

Sparks wrote: »

Haven't found 2012 and 2013, but 2007-2011 is just more of the same ten-year trend:

A trend that is not running away as we are led to believe. Given the huge difference in detection now compared to 50 or 100 years ago it is not impressive at all.

Sparks

FWVT wrote: »

A trend that is not running away as we are led to believe. Given the huge difference in detection now compared to 50 or 100 years ago it is not impressive at all.

Hold up there a moment please, you're talking about predictions there.

But the original query was about observations:

markfla wrote: »

we were warned about increases in Hurricanes, tornadoes etc. and severe storms when the fact of the matter is there has been no observable increase in the last decade of these. In fact hurricanes have fallen off and there's no increase in tornadoes
...
Global sea ice the last two years has been on the increase

All those graphs I posted weren't of predictions, they were of observations. Things that have happened and been measured, and I was very clear about that:

Sparks wrote: »

Well, that's just wrong about hurricanes and tropical storms:

And the power in those storms is also increasing and seems correlated to sea surface temperature:


Now you might say correlation is not causation, but the climatologists and meteorologists said it before you did; but those are observations, not predictions, so even if you disagree with what's causing them, you don't get to say they're not happening...

(and similarly about the ice measurements).

You then asked about further observations after those graphs ended:

FWVT wrote: »

What about since 2007?

And that's when I posted the other set of graphs that you're now deriding.

But through all of that chain, we've been talking about observations. Not predictions. That ten-year trend? It's an observation. Not a prediction. You might not think it's terribly impressive, but that doesn't mean it's not actual ground truth.

And bluntly, when 97% of the scientists working in a field have reached a consensus on a basic point, as they have here, you need to have some pretty stonking good evidence to point to if you want to dismiss that consensus (and so far, that's not been forthcoming from anywhere - we've seen sporadic data presented that subsequently falls apart under analysis and we've seen tinfoil-hat-level conspiracy theories and that's about it). The Sagan standard applies!

Carl Sagan wrote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Thargor

Great posts Sparks thanks.

markfla wrote: »

how I see it is, we were warned about increases in Hurricanes, tornadoes etc. and severe storms when the fact of the matter is there has been no observable increase in the last decade of these. In fact hurricanes have fallen off and there's no increase in tornadoes although the record on these is patchy before the satellite era. The increase in rain over these isle has abated and been attributed to the north Atlantic oscillation. Global sea ice the last two years has been on the increase...I understand variability can happen on a trend over time but we are being told the ocean is taking the heat...why the increae in sea ice. I'm very very far from an expert but from I've been picking up recently I've been getting sceptical of the whole thing not because I think there is a big political conspiracy, I just think we may have got it wrong? I had read up on sudden strat warming, geopotential height differences and affects on the jet stream, albedo effects, multi decadal oscillations etc. in a genuine effort to understand GW but maybe there is something we're missing going on what's being observed.

Any thoughts on the graphs Sparks posted compared to your statement above? Has the data been tampered with just to get grants and impose "green taxes" and "red tape"?

FWVT

Sparks wrote: »

Hold up there a moment please, you're talking about predictions there.

But the original query was about observations:


All those graphs I posted weren't of predictions, they were of observations. Things that have happened and been measured, and I was very clear about that:



(and similarly about the ice measurements).

You then asked about further observations after those graphs ended:

And that's when I posted the other set of graphs that you're now deriding.

But through all of that chain, we've been talking about observations. Not predictions. That ten-year trend? It's an observation. Not a prediction. You might not think it's terribly impressive, but that doesn't mean it's not actual ground truth.

And bluntly, when 97% of the scientists working in a field have reached a consensus on a basic point, as they have here, you need to have some pretty stonking good evidence to point to if you want to dismiss that consensus (and so far, that's not been forthcoming from anywhere - we've seen sporadic data presented that subsequently falls apart under analysis and we've seen tinfoil-hat-level conspiracy theories and that's about it). The Sagan standard applies!

I never once mentioned the word forecasts, I was talking purely about observations. I'm not sure what your argument is all about.

Now, as I said before and will repeat again, the OBSERVED increase in hurricanes /tropical storms over the past few decades does not live up to the hype that we are hearing about, albeit mostly in the media, for which I have zero time. Taking your graphs as evidence, coupled with the increase in detectability, I again reckon that there should have been a greater increase in activity than there has been.

By the way, about 3 years ago, in a former life on this site, I argued the point about the effects of the respective phases of the PDO and AMO on global temperature trends, and that the leveling off was predictable with their current phases. People like Mindgame ridiculed my assertion, yet he iss one of those supporting this recent research in the original BBC post.

I firmly believe that our part in driving the global temperature rise is outweighed by natural forcings on a larger timecale. Zoom out on the time series and you will see that the recent decades are noise on a larger trend, which is noise on an even larger trend, and so on ad infinitum.

Cue the quote of 97% of cats again...

Sparks

FWVT wrote: »

I never once mentioned the word forecasts, I was talking purely about observations.

Er, no, you weren't. You said:

A trend that is not running away as we are led to believe.

You can't say something is running away without making predictions (specifically that the trend will continue beyond where your observations end with the same pattern you've seen to that point).

Nobody said that in the entire chain of posts. Someone said hurricanes have been decreasing in the last decade; I posted the observations that said they had not, but had been increasing; you asked what about the years after the observations I posted ended; I posted what observations I could find for those years; then you made a comment about predictions. Which we weren't talking about.

Now, as I said before and will repeat again, the OBSERVED increase in hurricanes /tropical storms over the past few decades does not live up to the hype that we are hearing about, albeit mostly in the media, for which I have zero time.

(a) Nobody is suggesting, even in the crazy fringes, that we introduce green taxes or carbon credits or tinfoil hats on the basis of what the tabloids print. That would be lunacy. So we can not only give the media zero time, but zero characters in posts on here as well.

(b) The IPCC is not the tabloids, nor is it part of the media at all. And its predictions are so far proving to be overly conservative (as the graphs for land ice coverage show so far). And individual climatologists like Hansen have made predictions over the last few decades which we've now seen by observation were quite accurate.

So the hype in the press is off but the science isn't; isn't this something we've heard over and over and over again with the media ad infinitum and isn't it time we stopped judging science based on what the media uses to hawk its ad spacereports?

I firmly believe that our part in driving the global temperature rise is outweighed by natural forcings on a larger timecale. Zoom out on the time series and you will see that the recent decades are noise on a larger trend, which is noise on an even larger trend, and so on ad infinitum.

Except that we already know that what we're seeing doesn't match anything on the longer timescales. Yes, you have the 120kyear cycles, but what we're seeing now is working a hundred times faster than those, and nobody's found any natural cycle that explains what we're now seeing. Despite centuries of looking.

Cue the quote of 97% of cats again...

So professionals studying this for decades all over the world are wrong and you, a random dog on the internet, are right.

Again, cue the Sagan Standard. There's no law says you're wrong, but where's your evidence that you're right? You've just said that there is some, when you talk about zooming out on time series, you've obviously got something in mind there, so what is it?

odyboody

Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ - Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001
‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009
The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is an “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.
UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?
Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.
Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.
Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN IPCC’s “very open” process.
(Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)
One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN's] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.
Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.
In addition, a Greenpeace activist co-authored a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.
The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.
In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.
McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”
Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”

OldRio

Thargor wrote: »

Great posts Sparks thanks.
Any thoughts on the graphs Sparks posted compared to your statement above? Has the data been tampered with just to get grants and impose "green taxes" and "red tape"?

Well some do have form you know.

Thargor

Odyboody that wall of text contains some serious BS, the hockey stick graph has never been debunked for example, it only gets more confirmation the more peer reviewed studies are done into it, plenty of references for this at the bottom of the wiki article:

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[13][14] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[15] More than a dozen further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.

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

So any "scientists" claiming to be responsible for debunking it are to be treated with suspicion. A load of the other names on it don't seem to have any presence on Google apart from a few entries asking if anyone knows who they are or where their job titles came from.

While the large blob of text you copied and pasted might look impressive if hard to read without any formatting, if you actually look at the entries very few if any seem to point to any actual evidence backing up those peoples opinions, definitely not the 97% consensus you get from peer reviewed studies that support evidence of man made climate change.

Thargor

OldRio wrote: »

Well some do have form you know.

But do you disagree with the graphs? I mean he claims that hurricanes arent happening with any increased frequency, so someone shows him evidence of a large spike in hurricane activity and he just disappears, probably to reappear in another climate change thread in a months time claiming again that there's been no observed increase in hurricane activity, its really frustrating to read this kind of behavior on Boards and other forums over and over again.