Global Warming Continues To Unravel
by Big Dog on Feb 13, 2010 at 15:41 Political
Another admission that data used by the IPCC is flawed. As with most of the erroneous data discovered, the claim is made that the information is background and does not change the conclusions. They relied on all the data to arrive at the conclusion but the data is not important for that conclusion…
A background note by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said a 2007 report wrongly stated that 55 percent of the country was below sea level since the figure included areas above sea level, prone to flooding along rivers.
~snip
Skeptics say errors have exposed sloppiness and over-reliance on “grey literature” outside leading scientific journals. The panel’s reports are a main guide for governments seeking to work out costly policies to combat global warming. al-Reuters
How much more will be discovered as people dig deeper and deeper into this scandal?
Where has Al “the science is settled” Gore been lately?
Perhaps he is snowed in somewhere…
UPDATE: Ron Smith of WBAL wrote this:
Check these out this weekend whenever you get a break from digging out from under our record snowfall; speaking of which, aren’t we amused by the resolute attempts of the climate doomsayers to link these huge recent winter weather events to global warming? Just recently, the annoying Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was pointing to mild winters in Washington, D.C. as evidence of potentially calamitous warming due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. In 2002, the venerable Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia haltingly informed his fellow lawmakers that a winter with a mere three inches of snowfall was indeed a harbinger of AGW. How’s it looking now, fellas? Oh, that’s right. I forgot. To the climate change crowd, this harsh winter is simply more proof that global warming is taking place – even though it’s not – because this is their story and they’re sticking to it. Time Magazine believes it. The New York Times, though not as definitively, does report there is a scientific consensus that the warming could well be the reason for the record storms because the warmth causes more moisture to be collected into the atmosphere and eventually dumped on our heads. Check out Marc Morano’s invaluable climatedepot.com for a compendium of news stories and opinion pieces slanted toward refutation of climate change doom saying.
Very well stated Mr. Smith…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: erroneous data, global warming, hoax, scandal
No doubt “Darrel” will be along any second now to tell us how bigoted we are for not buying the IPCC’s self-exculpation and committing unconditionally to warmista gospel.
Religious warriors never surrender. They win or die. This will go on until the last warmista runs out of breath.
FRAN: “No doubt “Darrel” will… [insults snipped]”>>
DAR
Francis has nothing but insults. I am a little surprised he has the courage to even come back here and engage me in a forum where he can’t censor the response. Well, he’s just spewing insults, it’s not like he’s actually going to address something substantive. And that’s unfortunate.
I have tried posting substantive responses to some of the extraordinary and completely unreferenced (and rather ludicrous) claims he makes on his site but he has, almost without exception, censored my comments. In an even more interesting act of unfairness and cowardice, he shares my unposted comments with others so they can post and respond to my comments, comments of mine that others can’t even see because he is afraid to allow them to be posted! Simply amazing.
Unlike Porretto, I operate in the open and have nothing to hide. Copies of my attempted posts, can be viewed here.
Porretto, as I said before, I would love to talk about this with you fairly and frankly in an open and at least somewhat fair forum. I floss with pseudo-intellectual blowhards like you. You’re my favorite. You are full of your own “turbulent gas” largely because you isolate you self from informed dissent. This leads to intellectual laziness and mental stagnation. You need a mental rinse, bad.
I offered three locations. I don’t know that Big Dog wants it here. It would be fine, he doesn’t censor. Your place doesn’t seem to work since you find it necessary to play der Fuehrer and censor even the slightest dissenting opinion for what can only be the reason of protecting your fragile ego from the discomfort of having your claims scrutinized (and nuked).
Best would be our freethinker forum. Other than porn spam, we don’t censor at all. What a notion. Pretty scary huh?
You could come and wipe the floor with me on my own turf. Oh the shame! Please do.
Your behavior is not that of a person who is confident of their positions. You talk big and then you run and hide. Are you going to grow a pair and compete and defend your claims or are you going to throw insults and run like a bunny? If you’re actually right, what are you so afraid of?
“…error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” –Jefferson
D.
————
Again kudos to Bigdog for consistently standing his ground, fighting for his beliefs and freely allowing dissent. I had forgotten how bad and poisonous the censorship of ideas is.
[quote]”(IPCC) said a 2007 report wrongly stated that 55 percent of the country was below sea level since the figure included areas above sea level, prone to flooding”>>
DAR
Science is self-correcting and this is in fact it’s strength. Errors are made, then they are corrected, we move on, progress is made.
Wrongly reporting the percentage of a country that is below sea-level is unfortunate but it obviously has absolutely no bearing whatsoever upon the truth or falsity of climate change. Zero.
D.
The only thing unraveling here is your credibility on the subject of climate change.
There’s going to be data issues, public relations setbacks, scientists playing politics and looking like fools, or even politicians playing scientists and looking that much worse. That’s just the world we live in.
I’m sorry that you think for global warming to be true and worth investing for prevention we need 100% perfect and accurate everything. That’s not going to happen though so you’ll have to get over it.
I will get over it when we stop working to spend billions on something that is a hoax and even if spending worked would only effect a tiny part of the climate.
We have been getting warmer and cooler for all of time in cycles. Stop looking at the last 200 or 1000 years and look back as far as we can. Cycles, warm, cold. That is how the planet works and we should not spend billions on trying to fix nature which showed us (again) this week that she is in charge and not man.
The more that the IPCC is looked into the more corrupt it seems. How anybody can still believe in this hoax is beyond me. But the media isn’t reporting it, so many people do not even know about climategate. I just wish some of the politicians would stand up and demand an investigation because our president still claims there is “overwhelming” evidence that global warming is real.
Mr.PINK: The more that the IPCC is looked into the more corrupt it seems.>>
DAR
Can you give even a single example of “corruption?” No.
PINK: “this hoax…”
DAR
If it’s a hoax then it is one that involves 97% of research climatologists and every single scientific body of national or international standing including 32 national science academies from around the world. Sorry, your slur is not believable.
PINK: But the media isn’t reporting it, so many people do not even know about climategate.>>
DAR
It was reported widely when it deserved very little. It was sensational and gave the deniers something to giggle about and distort but when you scratch below the surface there is nothing there. The AP for instance examined each of the stolen 1,073 e-mails and found <a href="Link“>nothing substantive. All of the “best” examples have been smacked down. Try one and see.
PINK: demand an investigation>>
DAR
Investigate what specifically? Science IS “investigation” and the IPCC represents probably the largest peer reviewed science document in modern time. It represents the distillation of the work of over 2,000 scientists. If you want to knock it down you do it with better science. Refute it, debunk it! These little nibbles and tiny errors (Himalayan glaciers and sea level of some country Bigd doesn’t even bother to name) are a good start but:
a) what took so long?
b) they’re entirely insignificant
You simply don’t like the answer, which is, the earth is warming and we are causing most of it.
PINK: president still claims there is “overwhelming” evidence that global warming is real.>>
DAR
And he’s exactly right. Perhaps you should make yourself familiar with the evidence.
D.
—————-
“A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[87] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003,… none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be “remarkable.”
Link
Bigd [quote]: “Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was pointing to mild winters in Washington, D.C. as evidence of potentially calamitous warming>>
DAR
And if he did that, he was wrong. Confusing weather with climate is a very common mistake (as you know).
Same with Byrd. Neither one of these guys are scientists with any expertise in this topic and when they make these comments they are not representing the view of the scientific community. They’re just politicians telling anecdotes.
But it is a mistake that is often used by global warming activists to justify. Hurricane seasons, snow, no snow, ice, no ice, it is all used to justify and all are mere weather events.
As for climate, you can make any argument you want if you limit the climate you study as is done here by limiting to a short past.
Bigd: “it is a mistake that is often used by global warming activists to justify.”>>
DAR
And it is wrong every time they do it. You do a good deed when you point it out.
97% of those who are registered, not 97% of the total number of such scientists. We have gone through this before. 97% of a subgroup is not 97% of the total.
If you said that 97% of the doctors in the AMA support Obamacare (which is nowhere near true as most oppose it) it would sound impressive except only about 16% of all doctors belong to the AMA.
Stop misleading people.
Bigd: “97% of those who are registered, not 97% of the total number of such scientists.”>>
DAR
More detail if you like:
“[A] survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments*, “found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.”
LINK
Much, much, much more here Scientific opinion on climate change.
Al Gore got a Nobel for the weather, not the climate…
They use weather to scare people. Climate changes and swings from one extreme to another. It has been going on since this planet has been around.
It is not new and it will change one day.
As long as people can make money off it we will see them scream about it.
Bigd: “Al Gore got a Nobel for the weather, not the climate…”>>
DAR
What the people who actually gave him the (shared) prize said:
“His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change,” the Nobel citation said. “He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.”
It cited Gore’s awareness at an early stage “of the climatic challenges the world is facing.” msnbc.
Bigd: “Climate changes and swings from one extreme to another.”>>
DAR
Although CO2 is a trace gas (about .04% of our atmosphere) it is responsible for a great deal of our warming. We have added so much to the atmosphere just since 1960, we’ve increased the concentration from 315 parts per million to 385 ppm today.
see chart.
To see this combined with temperature, see:
CO2 and temperature chart.
D.
survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments
97% of this group is not 97% of all researchers. It is 97% of those listed in that directory (AGI geoscience depts). This is not 97% of all scientists in these fields, just of those listed in this directory.
Like my AMA example, a big difference as I pointed out before.
Bigd: “97% of this group is not 97% of all researchers.”>>
DAR
Do you have any reason why anyone should believe that you would know more about climatology than 97% of the climatologists listed in the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments?
If you don’t like that group, try:
“In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.” Link.
If you don’t like that group try:
“A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change” believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature.” –ibid
DAR
If I want to know where a catheter is inserted, it would make sense to ask you. If you want to know the optimal frequency of the fourth octave A string on a piano, ask me. If we want to know something about climatology, it makes sense to look to the people who are trained experts in the field of climatology.
In doing this I am only doing what you do on any other topic when you are not heavily invested in an ideology that conflicts with what the science says.
D.
——————-
“It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.” Ibid.
I merely point out that 97% of a particular subgroup is not 97% of the entire population. Once again if someone said 97% of the AMA supported Obamacare (not even close) that would sound impressive until one realizes that the AMA accounts for a very small part of all physicians.
It is nice that the survey shows scientists believe, or feel. The science is not settled.
Man has little effect on the climate. It was very hot and very cold long before man got here.
CO2 has been much higher than that in the past.
Can you explain what Gore did that was worthy of a PEACE prize?
Bigd: “Can you explain what Gore did that was worthy of a PEACE prize?”>>
DAR
It’s their prize and they have an elborate process set up to decide who gets it. I certainly understand how you would see this as a stretch but they are looking at the big picture along with the assumption the science is right. If it is, and it certainly seems to be, then this will have huge ramifications for world peace in the future and Gore’s work then rightfully raised awareness at a crucial time.
Anyway, I have answered this question for you before. From September 14:
***FLASHBACK
BIGD: “Al Gore got a peace prize for something that had nothing to do with peace.”>>
DAR
Tell that to the Pentagon:
“Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us”
Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
Al Gore shared the peace prize because hundreds of millions of people being displaced around the world has *profound* consequences for “peace.”
D.
—————–
Or as the Nobel Prize page says:
“…for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”
So Al Gore got a peace prize for assumptions about what will or won’t happen based on something we do not know. In other words, they gave him the prize because it might cause peace in the future.
This explains why the left felt Obama deserved one as well. He might do something that is worthy.
Got it.
I understand, we have a low bar set for the left.
Bigd: “So Al Gore got a peace prize for assumptions about what will or won’t happen based on something we do not know.”>>
DAR
All projections about the future have uncertainty. In philosophy this is the problem of induction. If I let go of a pencil, it may float up to the ceiling, but our understanding of science leads us to believe that it will probably fall to the floor. Our certainty that humans are the cause of recent global warming is about 95%. That’s not as certainly as our understanding of pencils and gravity, but it’s pretty certain. Best to prepare.
Bigd: “[Obama] might do something that is worthy. [of the peace prize]”>>
DAR
The peace prize has often been given out in expectation that the person receiving it will thus gain an even greater ability to pursue peace than they would otherwise have had. About two hundred voted in the decision regarding his prize and the vote was unanimous.
Martin Luther King (noted conservative) received the Peace Prize in 1964 but easily his greatest achievements in this endeavor were accomplished after receiving it (even though he only lived another four years).
Probably a liberal shot him eh?
D.
I don’t know if it was a liberal who shot him. King was a Republican so it was probably a Democrat and since it was a racist, it was a Democrat. I don’t know if he was liberal but he had a criminal record and came from a broken home so he probably was.
Bigd: “King was a Republican…”>
DAR
Wow. I didn’t know that. You taught me something new.
D.
————–
Did a little checking:
“Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his autobiography:
“The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.”
That was his description of the 1964 Republican National Convention. He also referred to the Republican convention as “the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right.”
Martin Luther King did not endorse particular candidates but he urged voters to vote for Democrats.
Many African Americans were registered Republicans before the 1960s because of their adherence to the party of Lincoln. After the civil rights turmoil of the 1960s and the Republican Southern Strategy, African Americans could no longer maintain that allegiance.”
“He supported the republican only because they were champions of the civil rights act at the time
then he supported JFK & LBJ when they started to champion the civil rights act.”
According to family members he was a registered Republican.
King was more than willing to back Nixon over Kennedy. Letters were written (to each) asking for help with his legal problems (arrest?) and Kennedy wrote back vowing to help. Nixon did not. THEN, King urged blacks to vote for Democrats.
But it was Bobby Kennedy who had him wiretapped.
Since a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the civil rights act I fail to see how they were the ones opposed. LBJ was opposed and had to approach it gingerly to avoid upsetting Democrats.
The civil rights legislation of the time was introduced by Ike, a Republican.
I guess it is hard to say since someone close to the issue has weighed in.
My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther
King, Sr., or “Daddy King”, was a
Republican and father of Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. who was a Republican.
Bigd: “greater percentage of Republicans voted for the civil rights act I fail to see how they were the ones opposed.”>>
DAR
All explained by the quotes I just gave above. You continue to confuse the two categories of “conservative” and “liberal” with “republican” and “democrat.” These are two distinctly different categories to consider. Party v. political stance.
The parties R and D, are like tents. People flow in and out. Their constituencies change and even swap over time. Sixty years ago, the republican tent did support civil rights and the Demo tent was indeed chock full of Dixiecrat racist CONSERVATIVES.
Then they left that tent and, went into the republican tent where they have been coddled ever since. You are being obtuse.
D.
But wait, there’s more.
Daddy King influenced a reported
100,000 black voters to cast
previously Republican votes for
Senator Kennedy even though
Kennedy had voted against the 1957
Civil Rights Law. Mrs. King had
appealed to Kennedy and Nixon
to help her husband, and Nixon
who had voted for the 1957 Civil
Rights Law did
not respond. At
the urging of his
advisors, Kennedy
made a politically
calculated phone
call to Mrs. King,
who was pregnant
at the time,
bringing the attention of the nation
to Dr. King’s plight.
Moved by Mrs. King’s gratitude for
Senator Kennedy’s intervention,
Daddy King was very grateful to
Senator Kennedy for his assistance
in rescuing Dr. King, Jr. from a life
threatening jail encounter. This
experience led to a black exodus
from the Republican Party.
Thus, this one simple act of gratitude
caused black America to quickly
forget that the Republican Party
was birthed in America as the antislavery
party to end the scourge of
slavery and combat the terror of
racism and segregation. They quickly
forgot that the Democratic Party was
the party of the Ku Klux Klan.
Banished from memory was the fact
that the Democratic Party fought to
keep blacks in slavery and in 1894
overturned the civil rights laws of
the 1860’s that had been passed by
Republicans, after the Republicans
also amended the Constitution to
grant blacks freedom, citizenship and
the right to vote.
Forgotten was the fact that it was
the Republicans who started the
HBCU’s and the NAACP to stop the
Democrats from lynching blacks. Into
the dust bin of history was tossed the
fact that it was the Republicans led by
Republican Senator Everett Dirksen
who pushed to pass the civil rights
laws in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and
1968.
Removed from memory are the facts
that it was Republican President
Dwight Eisenhower who sent
troops to Arkansas to desegregate
schools, established the Civil rights
commission in 1958, and appointed
Chief Justice Early Warren to the U.S.
Supreme Court which resulted in the
1954 Brown v. Board of Education
decision ending school segregation.
Thank you for reminding that the very reason I (and blacks) would have been a republicans back then is the very same reason I (and African Americans) would not be one today.