Go Back   Literotica Discussion Board > Main Literotica Forums > Authors' Hangout

Reply
 
Thread Tools

Old 08-02-2012, 03:38 PM   #626
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 18,028

IPCC Lead Author Misleads US Congress

by Roger Pielke, Jr.

Quote:
The politicization of climate science is so complete that the lead author of the IPCC's Working Group II on climate impacts feels comfortable presenting testimony to the US Congress that fundamentally misrepresents what the IPCC has concluded. I am referring to testimony given today by Christopher Field, a professor at Stanford, to the US Senate.

This is not a particularly nuanced or complex issue. What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific questions, but it is altogether different to fundamentally misrepresent an IPCC report to the US Congress. Below are five instances in which Field's testimony today completely and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings to the Senate.

1. On the economic costs of disasters:
Field: "As the US copes with the aftermath of last year’s record-breaking series of 14 billion-dollar climate-related disasters and this year’s massive wildfires and storms, it is critical to understand that the link between climate change and the kinds of extremes that lead to disasters is clear."

What the IPCC actually said: "There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"
Field's assertion that the link between climate change and disasters "is clear," which he supported with reference to US "billion dollar" economic losses, is in reality scientifically unsupported by the IPCC. Period. (More on the NOAA billion-dollar disasters below.) There is good reason for this -- it is what the science says. Why fail to report to Congress the IPCC's most fundamental finding and indicate something quite the opposite?




more...
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/201...-congress.html
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2012, 12:12 PM   #627
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
 
dr_mabeuse's Avatar
 
dr_mabeuse is offline
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,516
Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a 'Total Turnaround'

Damn! That insidious climate-change cabal has gotten to another scientist!

Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a 'Total Turnaround'
By Natalie Wolchover | LiveScience.com – Tue, Jul 31, 2012
Yahoo News

A prominent scientist who was skeptical of the evidence that climate change was real, let alone that it was caused by humans, now says he has made a "total turnaround." Richard Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, says he has become convinced that "the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct," and that humans are "almost entirely the cause" of that warming.

Muller co-founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) team two years ago in order to independently assess what he viewed as questionable evidence of global warming. In a series of papers published last year, BEST presented their statistical analysis of 1.6 billion temperature reports spanning the last 200 years, controlling for possible biases in the data that are often cited by skeptics as reasons to doubt the reality of global warming.

Their analysis indicated that global warming is real — that the average global land temperature has risen by 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) since 1750, including 1.5 degrees F (0.9 degrees Celsius) in the past 50 years. The numbers closely agree with the findings of past studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA and others; but finally, they were rigorous enough to satisfy Muller.

Now, in a brand new study that probed the causes of that warming, the BEST team says it has cleared from blame the natural variations in Earth's climate that so often get implicated by skeptics. Muller and his colleagues implicate carbon dioxide emissions by humans as essentially the sole cause of global warming.



"The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we've tried," he wrote Saturday (July 28) in a New York Times editorial. "Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don't prove causality and they shouldn't end skepticism, but they raise the bar: To be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does."

That's a high bar indeed. In graphs released with the new study, a red line representing the atmoaspheric concentration of CO2 crawls across the decades almost exactly tracing the black line representing the observed warming of the Earth.

By comparison, the study found that natural variability, including variations in the solar cycle, El Niño events and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (shifts in sea-surface temperatures that run in cycles), could have accounted for no more than 0.17 degrees Celsius of temperature variation — either warming or cooling — during the past 150 years. These natural forces are much subtler than the warming seen during the same time period.

In fact, the new results indicate that humans have been warming the Earth for longer than climate scientists previously thought certain. "In its 2007 report, the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans," Muller wrote. "It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural."

Not so, according to the new findings; variations in solar activity have a negligible effect on Earth's temperature. The handiwork is almost all our own.
"I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered," Muller wrote. "I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done."
======================

Of course, he's only a professor of physics at Berkeley, that hotbed of leftist scientific bias. What does he know?
__________________
......

EPIC Award Winner: A Good Student Best E-published Erotic Novel, 2009
(E-Publishers Internet Consortium)


Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the
milk of Paradise...

Lit Stories: The Cabinet of Dr. Mabeuse...
Even more... T h e W e b s i t e
~The Love That Is Not Madness Is Not Love~


More books: Published by Jasmine-Jade

Last edited by dr_mabeuse : 08-03-2012 at 12:21 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2012, 12:38 PM   #628
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
 
dr_mabeuse's Avatar
 
dr_mabeuse is offline
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,516
This would be funny if it weren't so shamefully sad. North Carolina has passed a law saying that current scientific data cannot be used in evaluating future sea levels in that state. They're banning science because it threatens the NC real estate industry's ability to make fortunes by selling and developing NC coastal properties. And anyhow, the Republican led legislature doesn't buy this whole Global Warming business. Not when it affects their bottom line.

Kind of reminds you of Galileo and the Catholic Church. Or the law passed by the State of Indiana in 1897 that made Pi equal to 3.2 rather than 3.1416... on the grounds that God wouldn't use irrational numbers in constructing the universe...


Colbert: North Carolina Sea Level Rise Findings Can Simply Be Made Illegal

Posted: 06/05/2012 3:31 pm Updated: 06/05/2012 3:55 pm

Stephen Colbert took on North Carolina legislators' suggestion to ignore rising sea levels on "The Colbert Report" Monday night, declaring, "If your science gives you a result you don't like, pass a law saying the result is illegal. Problem solved."

Despite the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission's prediction of a one-meter sea level rise by 2100, the News & Observer reported last week that state lawmakers aimed to limit plans to address this (literally) rising challenge.

Although Colbert maintained that there's no way of knowing the devastation inflicted by a one-meter sea level rise "because it's metric," the findings caused a stir, and were challenged by NC-20, a coastal economic development group.

Republican legislators circulated a bill, which, as a Scientific American blog pointed out, stated that sea level "rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900."

Colbert joked that the "no politician wants" the graph predicting accelerating rates of sea level rise, since it looks like a "ski jump to hell." When GOP lawmakers use past data to predict the future "that makes that scary chart get all better," he declared.

Unfortunately, the real numbers seem to keep getting scarier. CO2 levels in the Arctic have recently passed 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. 350 ppm was deemed by many scientists to be "the highest safe level for carbon dioxide," according to the Associated Press. CO2 levels have not been in the 400's on Earth for at least 800,000 years, or, as Colbert stated, since "wooly mammoths roamed the Earth in Escalades."
__________________
......

EPIC Award Winner: A Good Student Best E-published Erotic Novel, 2009
(E-Publishers Internet Consortium)


Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the
milk of Paradise...

Lit Stories: The Cabinet of Dr. Mabeuse...
Even more... T h e W e b s i t e
~The Love That Is Not Madness Is Not Love~


More books: Published by Jasmine-Jade
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2012, 01:13 PM   #629
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 18,028
Quote:

...two things this week have changed my mind, and I have decided to take on one aspect of this issue: the infamous “hide the decline.”


...[the second was] this youtube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI ) clip of physicist Richard Muller (Director of the Berkeley Earth Project), where he discusses “hide the decline” and vehemently refers to this as “dishonest,” and says “you are not allowed to do this,” and further states that he intends not to read further papers by these authors (note “hide the decline” appears around minute 31 into the clip). While most of his research is in physics, Muller has also published important papers on paleoclimate, including a controversial paper that supported McIntyre and McKitrick’s analysis...
-Judith A. Curry, Ph.D.
Professor & Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1982
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee
Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Geophysical Union
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2012, 01:19 PM   #630
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
 
dr_mabeuse's Avatar
 
dr_mabeuse is offline
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,516
By the way, North Carolina passed the law, earning it the title of one of the Last Great Bastions of Medieval Thinking in the Modern World.

It also gives you some idea of how the Deniers deal with Science.


New Law in North Carolina Bans Latest Scientific Predictions of Sea-Level Rise

ABC News Aug 2, 2012

By ALON HARISH
Aug. 2, 2012

A new law in North Carolina will ban the state from basing coastal policies on the latest scientific predictions of how much the sea level will rise, prompting environmentalists to accuse the state of disrespecting climate science.

The law has put the state in the spotlight for what critics have called nearsightedness and climate change denial, but its proponents said the state needed to put a moratorium on predictions of sea level rise until scientific techniques improve.

The law was drafted in response to an estimate by the state's Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) that the sea level will rise by 39 inches in the next century, prompting fears of costlier home insurance and accusations of anti-development alarmism among residents and developers in the state's coastal Outer Banks region.

Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue had until Thursday to act on the bill known as House Bill 819, but she decided to let it become law by doing nothing.

The bill's passage in June triggered nationwide scorn by those who argued that the state was deliberately blinding itself to the effects of climate change. In a segment on the "Colbert Report," comedian Stephen Colbert mocked North Carolina lawmakers' efforts as an attempt to outlaw science.

"If your science gives you a result you don't like, pass a law saying the result is illegal. Problem solved," he joked.

The law, which began as a routine regulation on development permits but quickly grew controversial after the sea-level provision was added, restricts all sea-level predictions used to guide state policies for the next four years to those based on "historical data."

Tom Thompson, president of NC-20, a coastal development group and a key supporter of the law, said the science used to make the 39-inch prediction was flawed, and added that the resources commission failed to consider the economic consequences of preparing the coast for a one-meter rise in sea level, under which up to 2,000 square miles would be threatened.

A projection map showing land along the coast underwater would place the permits of many planned development projects in jeopardy. Numerous new flood zone areas would have to be drawn, new waste treatment plants would have to be built, and roads would have to be elevated. The endeavor would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars, Thompson said.

"I don't want to say they're being dishonest, but they're pulling data out of their hip pocket that ain't working," he said of the commission panel that issued the prediction, the middle in a range of three predictions.

Thompson, who denies global warming, said the prediction was based on measurements at a point on the North Carolina coast that is unrepresentative of the rest of the coast.

But the costs Thompson decries as wasteful are to the law's opponents a necessary pill the state must swallow if it is going to face up to the challenge of protecting the coast from the effects of climate change.

State Rep. Deborah Ross, a forceful critic of the bill, compared it to burying one's "head in the sand."

"I go to the doctor every year. If I'm not fine, I'd rather know now than in four years," said Ross, a Democrat who represents inland Greensboro, N.C., but owns property on the coast. "This is like going to the doctor and saying you're not going to get a test on a problem."

Its supporters counter that the law does not force the state to close its eyes to reality, but rather to base policy on more than a single model that produced what they believe are extreme results.

Republican State Rep. Pat McElraft, who drafted the law, called the law a "breather" that allows the state to "step back" and continue studying sea -level rise for the next several years with the goal of achieving a more accurate prediction model.

"Most of the environmental side say we're ignoring science, but the bill actually asks for more science," she said. "We're not ignoring science, we're asking for the best science possible, the best extrapolation possible, looking at the historical data also. We just need to make sure that we're getting the proper answers."

As it thrust North Carolina into a national debate about climate politics, the bill became a lightning rod at home.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Perdue said her office received 3,400 emails opposing the bill in the first week after it passed the Republican-controlled state legislature.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), sea level rise along the portion of the East Coast between North Carolina and Massachusetts is accelerating at three to four times the global rate. A USGS report published in the journal Nature Climate Change in June predicted that sea level along the coast of that region, which it called a "hotspot," would rise up to 11.4 inches higher than the global average rise by the end of the 21st century.

The historical political clout wielded by North Carolina's developers has led some critics of the law to accuse legislators backing it to promote those who line the pockets of their campaigns.

The largest industry contributors to McElraft's campaigns have been real estate agents and developers, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Her top contributor since she was elected to the General Assembly in 2007 has been the North Carolina Association of Realtors, followed by the North Carolina Home Builders' Association.

McElraft, who is a former real estate agent and lives on Barrier Island off the coast, denied that campaign contributions ever influence her decisions as a lawmaker, and said her votes have not always favored increased development.

More than simply protecting developers, the new law protects homeowners from an overactive state government that would take away their right to build on their own property, McElraft said. Given an increased projected risk of flooding, insurance companies would likely charge coastal property owners, who already pay higher premiums, a concern Rep. Ross said she shared.

Ross, though, said she would rather pay for a more expensive insurance policy on her coastal home than be uncertain about whether it will be wiped out by the Atlantic Ocean in a few decades.

Gov. Perdue released a statement Thursday that gave a qualified endorsement of the law while urging lawmakers to develop a coherent approach to sea-level rise.

"North Carolina should not ignore science when making public policy decisions. House Bill 819 will become law because it allows local governments to use their own scientific studies to define rates of sea level change," Perdue wrote.

"I urge the General Assembly to revisit this issue and develop an approach that gives state agencies the flexibility to take appropriate action in response to sea level change within the next four years."
__________________
......

EPIC Award Winner: A Good Student Best E-published Erotic Novel, 2009
(E-Publishers Internet Consortium)


Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the
milk of Paradise...

Lit Stories: The Cabinet of Dr. Mabeuse...
Even more... T h e W e b s i t e
~The Love That Is Not Madness Is Not Love~


More books: Published by Jasmine-Jade
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2012, 02:02 PM   #631
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 18,028

Do you use tea leaves or crystal ball readings as a basis for decision-making?


Someday— presuming they make enough forecasts— the IPCC will actually make one that turns out to be true.

Then— like Wall Street— climatology will claim to be clairvoyant and omniscient. Until such time as one of climatology's forecasts actually turns out to be accurate, I'd hold off selling my winter wardrobe if I were you.

  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2012, 02:17 PM   #632
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
 
dr_mabeuse's Avatar
 
dr_mabeuse is offline
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by trysail View Post
-Judith A. Curry, Ph.D.
Professor & Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1982
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee
Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Geophysical Union
There's a nice article about Dr. Curry, her views and motivations, in Scientific American from 2010.

Excerpt [from p3. My emph--Dr.M.]:

Climate skeptics have seized on Curry’s statements to cast doubt on the basic science of climate change. So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy. What she does believe is that the mainstream climate science community has moved beyond the ivory tower into a type of fortress mentality, in which insiders can do no wrong and outsiders are forbidden entry.

Curry is not alone in criticizing the IPCC and individual climate scientists; in the wake of Climategate, an error about glacial melting in an IPCC report, and accusations of conflicts of interest involving IPCC chair Rajendra K. Pachauri, bodies ranging from the U.N. to the British government to individual universities on both sides of the Atlantic launched investigations. None found evidence of fraudulent science—including, most important, a probe by the InterAcademy Council (IAC)—a network of the U.S. National Academies of Science and its counterparts around the world. Although it found no major errors or distortions, it reported that the IPCC’s procedures have failed to change adequately with the times and that in some cases the body has not enforced its own standards rigorously.

Stripped of incendiary words, the central issue that concerns Curry also happens to be the key problem in translating climate science into climate policy. The public at large wants to know whether or not climate is warming, by how much and when, and they want to know how bad the effects are going to be. But the answers scientists give in papers and at conferences come couched in a seemingly vague language of confidence intervals and probabilities. The politically charged nature of the issue seems to have made some scientists reluctant to even mention anything to the public about “uncertainty” for fear that the likes of Oklahoma’s Senator James “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” Inhofe and other politically motivated skeptics will continue to use the word as a blunt instrument against the whole enterprise of climate science—that because the scientists do not know everything, they know nothing...
==================


You don't give a date for Curry's "hide the decline" comment, but I'll assume it's from around the time of the Video, or ~10/1/10. The following article, dated 10/30/1,0 analyzes the basis of her complaint and her misinterpretation of the data, with lots of graphs. The article's too long for cut&paste, but here's the beginning and the link:

Judith Curry Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot

Oct 30, 2010

full article

I didn’t expect Judith Curry to embarrass herself more than she did with her fawning over Murry Salby’s folly. But she’s topped (perhaps I should say “bottomed”) herself by a huge margin.

Anthony Watts was so excited he actually suspended his blog hiatus to report the story. He quotes the GWPF that “BEST Confirms Global Temperature Standstill,” and cites a story in the Daily Mail reporting that Judith Curry (a member of the Berkeley team) has roundly criticized Richard Muller (leader of the Berkeley team), on much the same basis. He quotes Curry herself, from the article:


As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said: ‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.'


With this statement, Curry reveals how little she understands the data created by the team of which she is a member, let alone the “other sets of data.” Which we might have anticipated, given that from what we’ve seen, she made little or no contribution to the actual Berkeley analysis.

Judging by her comments, it’s a good thing for the Berkeley team that she didn’t. The Daily Mail quotes her thus:


‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

That’s a pretty strong statement, Judith. Do you have a scientific basis to back it up? Have you actually analyzed the data from your own team? Do you even know?

Now that the Daily Mail and Anthony Watts have not only let the cat out of the bag but put it on display to make a “scandal” out of it, Curry seems to want to distance herself from her criticism. On her own blog she says:


I told Rose that I was puzzled my Muller’s statements, particularly about “end of skepticism” and also “We see no evidence of global warming slowing down.”

When asked specifically about the graph that apparently uses a 10 year running mean and ends in 2006, we discussed “hide the decline,” but I honestly can’t recall if Rose or I said it first. I agree that the way the data is presented in the graph “hides the decline.” There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate. Muller et al. have been very transparent in their methods and in making their data publicly available, which is highly commendable.


My most important statement IMO is this: ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’ My main point was that this is a very good data set, the best we currently have available for land surface temperatures. To me, this should have been the big story: a new comprehensive data set, put together by a team of physicists and statisticians with private funds. Showing preliminary results is of course fine, but overselling them at this point was a mistake IMO.

It seems to me that there are only two possibilities. Either Judith Curry hasn’t bothered to analyze the data from her own team — or she’s not competent to.

Just looking at the data isn’t enough. It’s all too easy to view some graph and get the wrong impression — in fact that what groups like GWPF exploit. Here, for instance, is the graph featured by GWPF...
__________________
......

EPIC Award Winner: A Good Student Best E-published Erotic Novel, 2009
(E-Publishers Internet Consortium)


Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the
milk of Paradise...

Lit Stories: The Cabinet of Dr. Mabeuse...
Even more... T h e W e b s i t e
~The Love That Is Not Madness Is Not Love~


More books: Published by Jasmine-Jade

Last edited by dr_mabeuse : 08-03-2012 at 02:29 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2012, 02:19 PM   #633
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 18,028

If all else fails, go ad hominem. Nice.


Is that the newest form of post-normal scientific method?


  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2012, 03:30 PM   #634
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
 
dr_mabeuse's Avatar
 
dr_mabeuse is offline
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by trysail View Post

If all else fails, go ad hominem. Nice.


Is that the newest form of post-normal scientific method?


When all else fails, cry that your opponent's going ad hominem.

There's nothing I've said that attacks Dr. Curry as a person or her integrity as a climate scientist. As I've said before, her credentials are impeccable. The SciAm article, if you'd read it, shows how her honest skepticism has thrown her into the middle of the political maelstrom, as well as clarify where she stands on the issue of ACC. She doesn't doubt it. She has reservations about predictive accuracy and the regrettable polarization of the debate, and in that she's by no means alone.

The second article is a critique of Dr. Curry's interpretation of the BEST data. Analysis and criticism of data by one's peers is something every scientist expects and welcomes. It's the way science works. I don't see how challenging someone's data or the interpretation thereof possibly qualifies as an ad hominem attack. In science it's possible to be wrong without being guilty.

If you want ad hominem attacks, the closest I'd offer would be what I said about Richard Feynman, the Nobel-winning physicist who's one of the darlings of the denier movement. I always knew Feynman was 'eccentric' and a professional contrarian who thrives on controversy, but I didn't know any real specifics until I came upon an article about him in an Atlantic Magazine from 2010 at my doctor's office not too long ago.

Back in the 50's, Feynman was the head of a government program to investigate the feasibility of using H-bombs to propel a space ship by exploding them against a big, round pusher plate in the rear of the ship. It would take the ship about 60 years to reach interstellar speeds (I forget exactly how fast) but it would happen. He found this to be an excellent idea. The ideas of possible fallout or radiation damage to the crew never seemed to interest him much. They were mere engineering problems.

Feynman's a big advocate of all things technical and has an almost religious belief in the power of technology to overcome any problem. He's very big on genetic engineering, and looks forward to the day when most of the natural flora and fauna of earth are extinct and replaced by organisms mankind designs through bioengineering. He sees no problem in environmental degradation and has no use for environmentalists. Once we've used up the earth, we'll simply pick up and go somewhere else.

He's certainly not dumb or ill-informed. He just seems to suffer from that myopia that seems to inflict so many geniuses. He's suggested that even if CO2 levels are rising on earth, they would only help us grow more crops, since plants ingest CO2. The shocking foolishness behind that kind of thinking should be obvious to anyone who ever watered a plant to death, or anyone who knows the least tiny bit about ecological systems.

Of course his son, who he was estranged from for 20 years (Feynman refused to bail him out when his son was caught with some pot at a party), is an ardent environmentalist who lived in a tree in British Columbia and is one of the world's foremost experts on native kayaks. They've now reconciled (the real subject of that article) but you have to wonder about the mutual understanding that goes on.

This is hardly an ad hominem attack. It just provides a context for weighing the validity of Feynman's bias in a field he doesn't know.

Ad hominem is when you impugn someone's character or integrity, as when the Deniers accuse climate scientists of consciously misleading the public to line their own pockets, or whatever ridiculous motivation you ascribe to their 'plot'. That's ad hominem.
__________________
......

EPIC Award Winner: A Good Student Best E-published Erotic Novel, 2009
(E-Publishers Internet Consortium)


Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the
milk of Paradise...

Lit Stories: The Cabinet of Dr. Mabeuse...
Even more... T h e W e b s i t e
~The Love That Is Not Madness Is Not Love~


More books: Published by Jasmine-Jade

Last edited by dr_mabeuse : 08-03-2012 at 03:52 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2012, 10:23 AM   #635
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 18,028


Post Normal Science: Deadlines

by Steven Mosher
http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/03/po...nce-deadlines/

Quote:
...This brings us to the last aspect of a PNS situation: immediate action is required. This perhaps is the most contentious aspect of PNS, in fact I would argue it is the defining characteristic. In all PNS situations it is almost always the case the one side sees the need for action, given the truth of their theory, while the doubters must of necessity see no need for immediate action. They must see no need for immediate action because their values are at risk and because the stakes are high. Another way to put this is as follows. When you are in a PNS situation, all sides must deny it. Those demanding immediate action, deny it by claiming more certainty*than is present; those refusing immediate action, do so by increasing demands for certainty...

...The demand for immediate action, however, is broader than simply a demand that society changes. In a PNS situation the behavior of those doing science changes. One of the clearest signs that you are in PNS is the change in behavior around deadlines. Normal science has no deadline. In normal science, the puzzle is solved when it is solved...

...The climategate mails are instructive here. As one reads through the mails it’s clear that the behavior of those doing science is not what one would call disinterested patient puzzle solving...

...Climategate is about FOIA. There were two critical paths for FOIA: one sought data, the other sought the emails of scientists. Not quite normal. Not normal in that data is usually shared; not normal in that we normally respect the privacy of those doing science. But this is PNS, and all bets are off. Values and practices from other fields, such as business and government, are imported into the culture of science: Data hoarding is defended using IP and confidentiality agreements. Demanding private mail is defended using values imported from performing business for the public. In short, one sign that a science is post normal, is the attempt to import values and procedures from related disciplines...

Entire piece:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/03/po...nce-deadlines/

  Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-2012, 12:40 PM   #636
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 18,028

Nomination for Maddox Prize – Stephen McIntyre

by Paul Matthews, Ph.D.
http://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/pe...pcm/maddox.pdf


I nominate Stephen McIntyre for the John Maddox Prize for standing up for science. He meets the requirements of the prize – he has raised concerns about misleading information about climate change, spoken up for rigorous evidence backed up by publicly available data, aided understanding of this complex issue through his papers, blog and talks, and faced difficulty and hostility with admirable equanimity.

McIntyre’s main area of expertise is statistics, and he has been working in the field of climate science for about ten years. His first paper [1] in collaboration with McKitrick raised several concerns about temperature reconstructions using proxy data that had suggested an unprecedented 20th century temperature rise and featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001). Subsequent work [2, 3] identified an error in the way the principal component analysis had been applied in these reconstructions, showing that methods used in papers cited by the IPCC would produce similar results even if the input data was random noise. Papers by other researchers [4, 5] added to these criticisms, which have implicitly (though rarely explicitly) been accepted by the climate science community, with the reconstruction diagrams playing a much smaller role in the IPCC’s Fourth Report in 2007. Montford [6] gives a detailed account of McIntyre’s work in this area. In more recent joint work he has discussed statistical techniques for comparing observed and modelled temperature trends [7], and identified problems with claims of widespread warming across Antarctica [8]. The central theme of McIntyre’s research, that climate scientists need to be more rigorous in their use of statistics, was reiterated by the 2010 Oxburgh report, which wrote that “We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.”

Although correction of errors could only strengthen the science, in an area of considerable importance for public policy, the response from the climate science community to McIntyre’s work has largely been hostile. One reviewer of the Antarctica paper [8] wrote 40 pages of objections that had to be overcome before the paper could be published. He has been falsely accused of scientific fraud [9]. A Guardian journalist in 2010 [10] referred to him as a “full-time climate change denier”, but was later persuaded to re-phrase this.

In addition to his research publications, McIntyre runs an online forum that won an award for “Best Science Blog” in 2007. Climate Audit was set up partly to respond to attacks on him made elsewhere, and has raised numerous issues relating to climate science, many of which are highly technical so will not be discussed here. But one important and straightforward matter is the availability of data. McIntyre has made several requests to climate scientists for data to be sent to him or to be placed in public archives, and his efforts have led to an improvement in data availability. One of the most high-profile of these was a 2009 request for the data on which the widely used CRUTEM3 temperature record is based. This request was met with various excuses, including the statement that the data was not available to non-academics. The request was followed up by two UK academics, ultimately leading (after appeal) to a 2011 decision from the Information Commissioner overruling the objections and requiring the data to be released [11].

McIntyre’s advocacy of open access to data to strengthen climate science appears prescient in the light of a recent Royal Society report [12], which cites his blog with the phrase “Some ask tough and illuminating questions, exposing important errors and elisions”, and a recent column in Nature calling for open access to data [13]. Some climate scientists have acknowledged the importance and influence of his work – Judith Curry credits McIntyre with starting a new movement, and says that “The climate change establishment failed to understand this changing dynamic” [14].



References

[1] S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick. Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) proxy data base and northern hemispheric average temperature series. Energy & Environment, 14(6):751–771, 2003.

[2] S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick. Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance. Geophysical Research Letters, 32(3):L03710, 2005.

[3] S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick. The M&M critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere climate index: Update and implications. Energy & Environment, 16(1):69–100, 2005.

[4] H. Von Storch, E. Zorita, J.M. Jones, Y. Dimitriev, F. Gonz´alez-Rouco, and S.F.B. Tett. Reconstructing past climate from noisy data. Science, 306 (5696):679–682, 2004.

[5] B.B. McShane and A.J. Wyner. A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable? The Annals of Applied Statistics, 5(1):5–44, 2011.

[6] A.W. Montford. The hockey stick illusion: Climategate and the corruption of science. Stacey International, 2010.

[7] R. McKitrick, S. McIntyre, and C. Herman. Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data series. Atmospheric Science Letters, 11(4):270–277, 2010.

[8] R. O’Donnell, N. Lewis, S. McIntyre, and J. Condon. Improved methods for PCA based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al.(2009) Antarctic temperature reconstruction. Journal of Climate, 24(8):2099–2115, 2011.

[9] climategate emails 1737.txt, 3045.txt.

[10] F. Pearce. Battle over climate data turned into war between scientists and sceptics. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ta-request-war , 2010.

[11] S. McIntyre. ICO orders UEA to produce CRUTEM station data. climateaudit.org/2011/06/27/ico-orders-uea-to-produce-crutem-station-data/ ,2011.

[12] Royal Society. Science as an open enterprise, page 40, 2012.

[13] G. Boulton. Open your minds and share your results. Nature, 486:441, 2012.

[14] J. Curry. http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/...ing_trust.html .
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2012, 12:43 PM   #637
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 18,028


Dayum! Would you look at that— seventeen (17) years and NO WARMING ( as in zero, nil, none, nada ).




http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had...lise/from:1995

  Reply With Quote

Old 08-30-2012, 12:11 AM   #638
MSTarot
Literotica Guru
 
MSTarot's Avatar
 
MSTarot is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: southern us
Posts: 1,002
I can't post scientific papers like some people can. I'm not terribly computer savvy. I do know a bit about history though.

Last edited by MSTarot : 10-20-2012 at 03:57 AM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-30-2012, 12:25 AM   #639
MSTarot
Literotica Guru
 
MSTarot's Avatar
 
MSTarot is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: southern us
Posts: 1,002
sorry hit wrong button. See what i mean.


there was a warming trend that occurred about a thousand years back called the Medieval Warming Period. During this it got so warm that the Vikings managed to farm in green land. You can't do that there now. This lasted about five hundred years

Right after this was a thing called the Little Ice Age. It lasted till the mid eighteen hundreds.

So in the last thousand years the temp has gone up, come down, and is now going up again.

that doesn't sound to me like we have a stable climate to begin with.

The other bit of history that i want to point out to anymore who wants to talk about global warming being the the fault of ranchers and cows.

Before the hunts of the eighteen hundreds the north american bison was the single most abundant animal on this planet. They numbered in populations close to current human levels. Several hundred Billion at least. They recorded hunters killing more than a quarter of a million of them in one state alone... in a years time.

That a lot of farting buffalo.

M.S.Tarot
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-06-2012, 06:28 PM   #640
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 18,028

Graph from NASA's own Goddard Institute:





Does anybody see much warming here ?






  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2012, 12:39 PM   #641
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 18,028


When you look at this graph, you are forced to consider the distinct possibility that the only correlation between CO2 and temperature is that temperature changes cause CO2 changes; not vice-versa. There is no empirical scientific evidence showing that changes in CO2 cause changes in temperature.




_____ Earth Science Research Laboratory CO2 (Mauna Loa) interpolated mean (NASA)
_____ Hadley Research Centre, Climate Research Unit variance-adjusted global mean temperature


http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esr...n:12/from:1958



Last edited by trysail : 10-03-2012 at 01:00 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-22-2012, 07:59 AM   #642
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 18,028


The BBC and the consensus

by Andrew W. Montford ("Bishop Hill")
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/bl...nsensus-1.html

Quote:
The 28gate seminar's finding that global warming science is settled and that "due balance" requires dissenting views to be seen and heard less is insidious. In this post I'm going to try to set out why.

What is the consensus? That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Yup. That man's activities are increasing carbon dioxide levels? Certainly. That temperatures went up at the end of the twentieth century and have not gone up since? Definitely. That human beings can affect the climate? Without a shadow of doubt.

Anything else? I don't think so. Even simple questions like whether observed temperature rises are anything out of the ordinary remain hugely controversial. The extent to which mankind has affected and will affect temperatures is likewise unknown, a great amphitheatre of ignorance dimly illuminated by a handful of aged CFLs - the climate models that scientists have pinned their hopes on - and little else. That these models are wrong is not in doubt - all models are wrong after all - but how wrong and how useful they are as tools to guide public policy is just another mystery. How can there possibly be consensus in these circumstances?

The impacts of climate change and the economics of climate change and policy responses to climate change are likewise entirely up in the air, with new hypotheses flown every day and shot down every evening and a mishmash of often contradictary empirical observations lending colour to the chaos. A glance tells you that there is no consensus.

So let us be clear, we don't even know if we have a big problem or a small one.

Yet the seminar has decided that sceptic input is not required in any of these areas. When did you last hear it put on the BBC that climate sensitivity might be low and that we were getting worked up about nothing? When did you last hear the Stern report or decarbonisation challenged on the BBC? 2007? I certainly can't recall any recent outings for views like this: they are sceptic views and are not to be aired. Yet these are all areas in which there is precisely no academic consensus. Indeed in the case of Stern one could probably make the case that there is something approaching consensus that the noble lord is talking out of his hat.

The concepts of mainstream and sceptic, upholder and dissentient, warmist and denier are profoundly unhelpful in the climate debate. The range of questions at issue mean that it is simply preposterous to divide everyone into two camps as the BBC has done - it's simply not logical.

Of course, given that the seminar was run for the benefit of green pressure groups, it's clear that logic had nothing to do with it. The BBC has used the seminar to minimise criticism of any aspect of climate science, climate economics and climate policy.




http://bishophill.squarespace.com/bl...nsensus-1.html
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2012, 10:19 AM   #643
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 18,028


If you live in San Francisco, take a look. This is precisely the kind of coercive diktat that the environmental extremists would like to shove down your throat.





The climate crazies are showing their true colours (they really are closet dictators who have clothed their totalitarian tendencies with the rationalization that anything is acceptable as long as it's a part of their mission to save the world).


Look what the climate brown shirts have done in San Francisco.

Quote:
http://www.masterresource.org/2012/11/cleanpower-sf/


San Francisco’s ‘Green’ Energy Plan: Back-Door Coercion, Front-Door Costs
by Dave Roberts
November 26, 2012

“I don’t think it’s the right thing to do to foist onto consumers … 20 to 30 percent higher energy rates in an opt-out program. If people want to spend more money … to buy green energy … that is terrific…. But to coerce them into doing it in an opt-out program … is the wrong approach.”

- Mark Farrell, San Francisco Supervisor, 2012 (quoted below)

Thousands of San Francisco residents may be sucked into a green energy plan that will raise their electricity rates 77 percent without their knowledge or consent. Beginning next spring, half of the city’s 375,000 residential ratepayers will automatically be enrolled in CleanPowerSF – unless they take action to opt out of the program. Eventually the entire city will be enrolled in the program unless they choose to opt out.

Here is the sales pitch of CleanPowerSF:


Currently, you don’t have a choice in how PG&E selects your power. Your PG&E electricity is generated from a portfolio that includes carbon-emitting and nuclear energy sources like natural gas and nuclear power. CleanPowerSF will generate your electricity from a 100% renewable electricity portfolio. CleanPowerSF’s energy mixture will utilize resources like solar, wind, biogas and geothermal power, effectively the cleanest energy available in the United States.

City officials are hoping at least 90,000 households will choose to remain in the program — despite paying an average $18 more each month. That could be a safe bet, because many liberal, wealthy San Franciscans will embrace the opportunity to boast that their power is coming from a clean, green, renewable energy source.

Many residents, perhaps tens of thousands, who could not care less where their energy comes from may be stuck with a 23 percent total rate hike (the 77 percent commodity-charge increase averaged down by unchanged items such as transmission). They would be unaware of the change and not know about their option to get out of it–thanks to CleanPowerSF’s “Do nothing, and you will receive cleaner energy; it’s that simple” siren song.

Pro-Consumer Advocates
That possibility bothers three San Francisco supervisors, who offered an amendment to the plan in September to help ensure it only includes willing participants. Their amendment, however, was voted down 8-3.

“It smells of coercion,” said Supervisor Mark Farrell of the opt-out provision.

He acknowledged that the state law enabling the formation of a Community Choice Aggregation program requires that it can only be an opt-out situation instead of a voluntary opt in. State legislators were concerned that if such a program were voluntary it would not get enough participants to make it viable. If San Francisco’s program does not attract at least 90,000 participants, the city would be liable for the funding shortfall along with Shell Energy, which could be as much as $15 million.

But Farrell believes the city could work around that constraint.


To me this [should be] a volunteer program or we create a mechanism where we knew the people who are being offered CCA and are being asked to increase their energy rates had at least indicated they wanted to do so….


I don’t think it’s the right thing to do to foist onto consumers an increase of 20 to 30 percent higher energy rates in an opt-out program. If people want to spend more money … to buy green energy from CleanPowerSF, I think that is terrific and we should allow people the ability to do that. But to coerce them into doing it in an opt-out program … is the wrong approach.

Farrell was backed by Supervisor Carmen Chu, who offered an amendment requiring that the initial rollout would only encompass “those customers who have indicated a desire to be included in the initial marketing of the program.” Chu also offered an amendment that would cancel the program if not enough people expressed interest to make it financially viable.

Farrell, Chu and Sean Elsbernd, the three moderates on the mostly leftist Board of Supervisors, voted for the amendments. Scott Wiener was the only other supervisor to express any interest in making sure that unaware San Franciscans aren’t sucked into the rate hike.

“I think there are very good arguments on both sides of this,” said Wiener, who wanted more information on the impact of Chu’s amendments. “I don’t want to have something passed and signed into law that will cause (San Francisco Public Utility Commission officials) to spin around chasing their tails because ultimately the program doesn’t happen because we have inserted a poison pill. We know state law requires an opt out. They are suggesting a preliminary opt in that shows support before proceeding. My question is whether we are able to do that, to have some form of an opt in that precedes the opt out.”

Green Planners at Work
PUC General Manager Ed Harrington, who postponed his retirement in order to shepherd CleanPowerSF to completion, responded that plans are already in place to achieve what Chu’s amendments are seeking to do, and that her amendments could in fact gum up the works.

“We’ve done extensive surveying already in terms of polling,” said Harrington.


We are only going and looking at places where a majority of people want to do it in the first place. We are not just randomly capturing people in the city where a majority may not want us. The problem that I see is that to be able to go out and have people sign up, I should be able to tell them the price. If I don’t know how many people are going to sign up or when they’re going to sign up, I can’t lock in the price until I sign the contract with Shell. It really harms the ability to have an intelligent conversation with people when you’re saying, ‘I don’t know what it is, but do you want it?’ It’s much more straightforward to say, ‘This is what it is, here’s your chance to make a choice.’

Wiener made a motion to postpone the decision a week to allow time to figure out a way to make sure that only willing participants are signed up for the program. The motion was voted down 7-3. Wiener then joined the majority in voting down Chu’s amendments.

Supervisor David Campos spearheaded the effort to approve the program, noting that the plan dates back 14 years when current state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, was a supervisor.

“It’s not as ambitious and aggressive a program as many people wanted,” said Campos. “But it’s a program that at the end assures success and viability. At the end of the day it’s really about providing consumers a choice. It’s about making sure that ratepayers in San Francisco have the opportunity to not only have clean energy but to have a meaningful choice, to make sure there are other players in the business of providing energy beyond the utility [PG&E] that has had a monopoly for so long.”

Harrington pointed out that San Francisco has a goal of reducing carbon emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. The city is currently in the process of spending $90 million for solar projects that will provide greenhouse gas reduction equivalent to fewer than 7,000 homes. CleanPowerSF will expand that to 90,000 homes for just $19.5 million, most of which won’t be spent unless the program falls short of the 90,000 signups.

“There’s nothing else anyone has even thought of that has that kind of dramatic impact in San Francisco of such a small dollar amount,” said Harrington. “It’s an incredibly efficient way of spending your money.”

But the clean energy program may not be as clean and wonderful as it’s been touted, according to an SF Weekly. A city controller’s report pointed out that city agencies will be spending millions of dollars more for energy under CleanPowerSF, and that will likely result in reduced city services and jobs.

In addition, the program doesn’t guarantee that 100 percent of the city’s energy will be coming directly through a pipeline from a wind farm or solar array. The Shell contract allows the company to obtain energy from some of the same sources as PG&E (which is doing so at much less cost), including coal and gas. Energy could also come from burning methane from landfills, sewage treatment plants and feedlots — renewable, but not exactly clean.

Veto Option Remains
CleanPowerSF is not yet a done deal. Mayor Ed Lee shares Farrell and Chu’s concern about the opt-out provision, and he may veto the legislation. Still, the board appears to have the eight votes necessary to over-ride a veto. But will those eight votes hold after the public becomes aware that they may be facing a 23 percent rate hike next year?

—————-

Dave Roberts, a freelance writer in the San Francisco Bay Area, has written editorials for the San Francisco Examiner and currently contributes to CalWatchdog.com.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2012, 12:06 PM   #644
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 18,028
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doo...d-hockey-stick



Speak loudly and carry a busted hockey stick
by Walter Starck
November 19, 2012

The average temperature for the Earth, or any region or even any specific place is very difficult to determine with any accuracy. At any given time surface air temperatures around the world range over about 100°C. Even in the same place they can vary by nearly that much seasonally and as much as 30°C or more in a day. Weather stations are relatively few and located very irregularly. Well maintained stations with good records going back a century or more can be counted on one’s fingers. Even then only maximum and minimum temperatures or ones at a few particular times of day are usually available. Maintenance, siting, and surrounding land use also all have influences on the temperatures recorded.

Quote:
The purported 0.7°C of average global warming over the past century is highly uncertain. It is in fact less than the margin of error in our ability to determine the average temperature anywhere, much less globally. What portion of any such warming might be due to due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is even less certain. There are, however, numerous phenomena which are affected by temperature and which can provide good evidence of relative warming or cooling and, in some cases, even actual temperatures. These include growth rings in trees, corals and stalactites, borehole temperature profiles and the isotopic and biologic signatures in core samples from sediments or glaciers. In addition, historical accounts of crops grown, harvest times, freezes, sea ice, river levels, glacial advances or retreats and other such records provide clear indication of warming and cooling.

Recent Warming Nothing Unusual
The temperature record everywhere shows evidence of warming and cooling in accord with cycles on many different time scales from daily to annual, decadal, centennial, millennial and even longer. Many of these seem to correlate with various cycles of solar activity and the Earth’s own orbital mechanics. The temperature record is also marked by seemingly random events which appear to follow no discernable pattern.

Over the past 3000 years there is evidence from hundreds of independent proxy studies, as well as historical records, for a Minoan Warm period around 1000 BC, a Roman Warm Period about 2000 years ago, a Medieval Warm Period (WMP) about 1000 years ago and a Modern Warm Period now developing. In between were markedly colder periods in the Dark Ages and another between the 16th and 19th centuries which is now known as the Little Ice Age (LIA). The warmer periods were times of bountiful crops, increasing population and a general flourishing of human societies. The cold periods were times of droughts, famines, epidemics, wars and population declines. Clearly life has been much better in the times of warmer climate, and there is nothing to indicate that the apparent mild warming of the past century is anything other than a return of this millennial scale warming cycle.

Good News Unwelcome to Alarmists
This rather good news about a possibly warmer climate has not met with hopeful interest from those who purport to be so concerned about the possibly dangerous effects of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). On the contrary, their reaction has overwhelmingly been a strong rejection of any beneficial possibility. It is apparent that their deepest commitment is to the threat itself and not to any rational assessment of real world probabilities or the broader consequences of any of their proposed remedies.

Fabricating a Hockey Stick from Hot Air
This blanket rejection of any possibility other than the hypothetical threat of AGW has led to some strange behaviour for people who modestly proclaim themselves to be the world’s top climate scientists. Not only have they ignored and dismissed the hundreds of studies indicating the global existence of a Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, they have set out to fabricate an alternate reality in the form of a graph purporting to represent the global temperature for the past thousand years. It portrays a near straight line wiggling up and down only a fraction of a degree for centuries until it begins an exponential rise gradually starting at the beginning of the 20th century and then shooting steeply up in the latter part of that century. This hockey stick-shaped graph was then heavily promoted as the icon of AGW. It appeared on the cover of the third climate assessment report of the IPCC published in 2003 and was reproduced at various places in the report itself.

Among the emails between leading climate researchers released in the Climategate affair were a number which revealed a concerted effort to come up with some means to deny the existence of the MWP. The implement chosen to do this became known as the Hockey Stick Graph.

The methodology used to construct the graph involved the use of estimates of temperatures from a very small sample of tree growth rings from the Yamal Peninsula in far northern Siberia and ancient stunted pine trees from near the tree line in the High Sierras of California. This data was then subjected to a statistical treatment later shown by critics to produce a hockey stick form of graph even when random numbers were used as raw input data. To make matters even worse, the same tree ring data also indicated a significant decline in temperature for the 20th century, but this was hidden by burying it in a much larger number of data points from instrument measurements. The resulting study was published in the prestigious scientific journal, Nature in 1998. Remarkably, this very small, highly selected and deceptively manipulated graph was proclaimed to be an accurate representation of global temperatures and the extensive body of contrary evidence was simply ignored.

Continuing the Game With a Busted Stick
When serious shortcomings of the hockey stick study began to be exposed and questioned the climate alarmists closed ranks and proclaimed their preeminent authority and expertise but refused to engage in any genuine scientific debate with their critics. Instead, they appealed to a supposed consensus of experts, peer review, and personal denigration of any who dared to disagree.

All of the name calling, pissing contests over credentials and abstruse statistical manipulations made it difficult for the general public to come to any conclusion. Regardless of various provable errors and conflicting evidence, the alarmists could and did simply ignore it all and claim the HS graph as gospel truth.

Then came Climategate. Obvious scams, lies and connivance are something that doesn’t require a computer model or a PhD to recognise. In the Climategate emails discussion of things like things like “…Mike’s Nature trick…,”, manipulations to “…hide the decline”, requests to destroy correspondence, efforts to supress publication of conflicting studies, vilification of critics, and abuse of peer review were matters anyone could see were not ethical. Certainly they were not the kind of behaviour we should expect from high level scientists whose advice we are being asked to accept in policies that could be expected to have major effects on the prosperity of our entire society.

The loss of public trust and credibility resulting from Climategate was immense and has been compounded by additional ongoing exposures of misconduct, repeated failures of alarmist predictions and the slow motion economic train wreck of green energy initiatives.

Although one might rationally expect that the obvious collapse of alarmist momentum would have them reassessing their approach and perhaps even the validity of their earlier assumptions, it seems that the idea that they may have been wrong in any respect must be be inconceivable to them. Instead, their response to conflicting reality and declining credibility has been only to declare still greater certainty and ratchet up the alarm to an even less believable level of hype.

If at First You Don’t Succeed, Repeat the Failure
Introduction of the carbon tax in Australia was supposed to lead the world along the path of righteousness toward cheap renewable energy and environmental correctness. Unfortunately for the current government both economic reality and climate itself have not co-operated. The intended good example is becoming one of an obvious foolishness to be avoided and nobody is following. Ongoing exposure of scientific misconduct by alarmist researchers and repeated failure of their predictions haven’t helped either. The alarmist community is in disarray and becoming increasingly shrill in the tone of their pronouncements. The need for strong new scientific evidence to reinforce the shredded remnants of their discredited claims is becoming desperate.

CSIRO has tried to help with a series of increasingly dire predictions but having become a heavily bureaucratised and politicised institution they have been careful to cover their backsides with qualifiers and disclaimers which dull the sharp edge of hype, certainty and urgency needed by government. However, through generous grants government has also bought and paid for reliable cadres of university based academics whose funding and even whole careers are now based on research into Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). Although science may aspire to value free objectivity, it is observable fact that when generous funding is provided to study a purported problem, one thing is certain. It will never be found that there really wasn’t one.

In early June this year a new research report announced the finding of a distinct hockey stick shaped graph for Australian climate over the past millennium. If correct, this would be of great value in supporting the faltering case for CAGW. As the original HS graph was based entirely on data from the northern hemisphere, finding the same pattern from the Southern Hemisphere would bolster the claim that the recent warming is indeed global and unprecedented. Based on different much more extensive data and free of the inappropriate statistical treatment of the original HS study, this new one would also greatly bolster the tattered credibility of the original study.

The new study appeared in Journal of Climate under the title, "Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium". It was authored by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Ailie Gallant, Steven Phipps and David Karoly. In mid-May 2012 it was made available online in preprint form, having been peer reviewed and accepted for print publication in an upcoming issue of the journal. In a number of key aspects what followed has been a rerun of the original HS story. Shortly after the online preprint appeared, the Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre pointed out that a statistical procedure which was stated in the Gergis et al. study to have been applied had not in fact been used.

Not coincidentally, it was McIntyre who exposed the statistical shortcomings in the original HS study.

Although advanced statistical analysis is widely used in science, very few researchers have a thorough mathematical understanding of what they are doing in this regard. Most are simply following a recipe. However, there is little risk of having to justify the validity of anything as their peers are not statisticians either. McIntyre has an unfair advantage in this. He is a genuine expert in statistics critiquing the work of researchers who are really not very skilled in his discipline.

What ensued in subsequent critical discussion on the Internet and in emails between the authors, their colleagues and the journal editors was a litany of shifting denial, obfuscation, excuses, trivialisation and denigration that could have been borrowed from the original HS script. Without going into the tedious and tawdry details (readily available on the net), the key points of the story are that in response to McIntyre’s finding of the statistical problem the authors announced they had already discovered it themselves the day before McIntyre pointed it out, and that it was really just an oversight in the data processing routine which could quickly be corrected and would have no effect on the overall findings of the study. The journal editors accepted this and gave the authors a deadline with sufficient time to rerun the data routine and make any necessary corrections to the MS.

After much speculation in the blogosphere and varying opinion among the authors and their supporters about what to do and how it might affect the outcome, the deadline passed without a corrected MS being received by the journal. The editors then asked for the study to be withdrawn. Such a request is the scientific equivalent of hara-kiri, a dishonour so great that the only honourable atonement is what amounts to ritual scientific suicide.

If, as publically maintained, all that was involved was a data processing error which could easily be corrected and would have no important effect on the outcome, surely the correction would have been made. However, email correspondence between the authors (which became available through an FOI request) revealed a concern that if properly applied the omitted data processing routine would not result in the desired HS graph or, if it did so, would at best yield only highly uncertain results.

The direct cost of this fiasco to taxpayers is reported to have totalled some $950,000 in research grants from 2009 to 2012. To further this failed work the latest Australian Research Council grants announcement also lists another $350,000 in funding to the lead author approved for 2013 – 2015. The climate gravy train can provide a sumptuous ride for those whose work shows promise of producing what the government wants.

Climatology - Science or Ideology?
Climatology is no longer recognisable as a science but has morphed into a fundamentalist ideology of a millenarian nature. Science only serves it to enhance claims of authority and certainty. Scientific ethics and evidence are employed selectively in accord with the noble cause of saving the planet from the corruptions of humanity and capitalism. Any conflicting reason or evidence is never sufficient for doubt but is only a test of faith to be overcome. Any opposing argument is not simply incorrect but driven by wilful evil, in league with big business if not Satan himself.

For third rate academics CAGW has much to offer. One doesn’t need to be particularly capable to speculate about some dire consequence of warming, receive widespread publicity and be treated as an important expert. Unlike in real science, no colleagues will dispute them and the few sceptics willing to question anything will generally be ignored and denigrated by all their peers. The news media will describe them as experts and provide the public attention they know they deserve but somehow had never been recognised by anyone else until they climbed onto the climate bandwagon. Grants then flow and jetting off to attend important conferences in attractive places with all expenses paid provides frequent welcome breaks from the tedium of academia. Perhaps best of all, is a delicious feeling of importance and moral superiority over all of the high achievers striving so hard to discover something of consequence about the real world. The only personal cost is to one’s own scientific integrity and that’s not worth much if one is just another unrecognised minor league academic no one had ever heard of before they joined into the climate alarm. In any case, saving the planet is the noblest of all causes and absolves any tinge of guilt in such regard.

Uncertainty and a Duty of Care
Recently an Italian court sentenced several scientists to jail terms in connection with a failed prediction regarding an earthquake. The court decision provoked widespread condemnation from the global scientific community because earthquakes are beyond the ability of current science to predict. However, the legal basis of their culpability was not in failing to predict the quake but in falsely asserting certainty in their own prediction. In this instance the scientists assured the local population that there was little risk of a dangerous event and that they should all go home, have a nice bottle of wine and not worry. A strong quake took place and several hundred people were killed.

The situation was perhaps exacerbated by a conflicting opinion from an independent researcher who had detected a sharp rise in radon gas in the air and felt this was evidence of an impending temblor. The government experts disagreed and assured everyone they were the experts and they were confident there was little or no risk.

If scientists are going to claim high levels of expert authority they have a duty of care to make clear the level of uncertainty in their predictions. This is especially so where there are potentially major detrimental consequences from following their advice should it prove to be incorrect. The essential difference between belief and science, or between alarmists and sceptics, is that the former assert certainty while the latter admit room for doubt. False claims of certainty and expertise by alarmist researchers have been a major obstacle to any rational public debate of the matter.

Fantasies vs. Reality
In the meantime, while we have been indulging the fantasies of activists and academics vying for our attention on the threat of CAGW, the economies of the developed world have come to teeter on the brink of financial chaos.

Democracies everywhere have voted for more government and more benefits than their productive sectors can support. Deficits are now chronic and blowing out while productive activity struggles under the burden of ever more government imposed restrictions and demands. The climate-alarmist push to penalise and restrict the use of fossil fuels and force the premature adoption of expensive, inadequate, unreliable renewable energy is a dagger to the very heart of our society at a time of great vulnerability. Ironically, if the alarmist aim is achieved they themselves, the urban non-producers, will be among the first to become truly unsustainable. The next few years look to become a decisive reality test.

In news just in (and curiously ignored in the mainstream Western media) it is reported that for the first time since it began The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not invited to attend an upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference. Could it be that in a global financial crisis nations have finally come to realise that climate hysterics are more of a problem than a solution?



http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doo...d-hockey-stick
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2012, 03:29 PM   #645
LaRocha
Literotica Guru
 
LaRocha is offline
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,094
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/t...lobal-warming/
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-28-2012, 07:02 PM   #646
Handley_Page
Literotica Guru
 
Handley_Page's Avatar
 
Handley_Page is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 34,136
- Mark Farrell, San Francisco Supervisor, 2012 (quoted below)

Thousands of San Francisco residents may be sucked into a green energy plan that will raise their electricity rates 77 percent without their knowledge or consent. Beginning next spring, half of the city’s 375,000 residential ratepayers will automatically be enrolled in CleanPowerSF – unless they take action to opt out of the program. Eventually the entire city will be enrolled in the program unless they choose to opt out.


That is exactly what is and has been happening in the UK, and a lot of us are really not happy about it.
All this to clean up less thatm 2% of Europe's Carbon emissions ?.
Twaddle say I.
__________________
.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Handley Page

"Incident at Cemetery Junction"
"Pest Control"
"Mavis's Car Trip"
"Norman-the-dragon "
"Stacy & the Angel "
" Earth Tremor on Stage ? "
" Charlie's Story "
http://www.literotica.com/stories/me...php?uid=883259
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-29-2012, 04:17 AM   #647
Handley_Page
Literotica Guru
 
Handley_Page's Avatar
 
Handley_Page is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 34,136
From 'the Register'
New science upsets calculations on sea level rise, climate change
Ice sheet melt massively overestimated, satellites show

By Lewis Page

A new analysis of data from dedicated satellites shows that one of the main factors predicted to drive rising sea levels in future has been seriously overestimated, with major implications for climate talks currently underway in Doha.

The new methods involve filtering out noise from the data produced by the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) spacecraft, sent into orbit with the aim of finding out just how much ice is melting from the world's ice sheets and glaciers. Such water then runs off into the sea, providing one of the main potential drivers of sea level rise - which is itself perhaps the main reason to worry about climate change.

"GRACE data contain a lot of signals and a lot of noise. Our technique learns enough about the noise to effectively recover the signal, and at much finer spatial scales than was possible before," explains professor Frederik Simons of Princeton uni. "We can 'see through' the noise and recover the 'true' geophysical information contained in these data. We can now revisit GRACE data related to areas such as river basins and irrigation and soil moisture, not just ice sheets."

Simons and his colleague Christopher Harig tried their new methods out on GRACE data covering the Greenland ice sheet, which is of particular interest as the rest of the Arctic ice cap floats on the sea and so cannot contribute directly to sea level rise by melting. Meanwhile the Antarctic ice cap is actually getting bigger, so Greenland is probably the major worry.

According to a Princeton statement highlighting the new research:

While overall ice loss on Greenland consistently increased between 2003 and 2010, Harig and Simons found that it was in fact very patchy from region to region.

In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed the researchers to estimate that the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons every year. Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.

The rate of loss of ice from Greenland is estimated at 199.72 plus-or-minus 6.28 gigatonnes per year. So the possible acceleration of losses is only barely larger than the margin of error in the readings: it's very difficult to tell the supposed loss curve from a straight line.

In other words the possible acceleration in ice losses is barely perceptible: it may not really be happening at all. Similar results were seen not long ago in GRACE data for central Asian mountain glaciers, another suggested source for sea-level rises.

If the Greenland ice losses aren't accelerating, there's no real reason to worry about them. According to the Princeton statement:

At current melt rates, the Greenland ice sheet would take about 13,000 years to melt completely, which would result in a global sea-level rise of more than 21 feet (6.5 meters).

Put another way, in that scenario we would be looking at 5cm of sea level rise from Greenland by the year 2130: a paltry amount. Authoritative recent research drawing together all possible causes of sea level rise bears this out, suggesting maximum possible rise in the worst case by 2100 will be 30cm. More probably it will be less, and there will hardly be any difference between the 20th and 21st centuries in sea level terms.

The new GRACE research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Details of the computer code can be found here.

Doha delegates take note. ®
__________________
.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Handley Page

"Incident at Cemetery Junction"
"Pest Control"
"Mavis's Car Trip"
"Norman-the-dragon "
"Stacy & the Angel "
" Earth Tremor on Stage ? "
" Charlie's Story "
http://www.literotica.com/stories/me...php?uid=883259
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2012, 06:44 AM   #648
Handley_Page
Literotica Guru
 
Handley_Page's Avatar
 
Handley_Page is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 34,136
Global warming still stalled since 1998, WMO Doha figures show
'We're looking into this thing which is NOT HAPPENING'
By Lewis Page •
Posted in Science, 29th November 2012 11:58 GMT

Figures released by the UN's World Meteorological Organisation indicate that 2012 is set to be perhaps the ninth hottest globally since records began - but that planetary warming, which effectively stalled around 1998, has yet to resume at the levels seen in the 1980s and early 1990s.


Have a look HERE:- for the whole thing.
__________________
.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Handley Page

"Incident at Cemetery Junction"
"Pest Control"
"Mavis's Car Trip"
"Norman-the-dragon "
"Stacy & the Angel "
" Earth Tremor on Stage ? "
" Charlie's Story "
http://www.literotica.com/stories/me...php?uid=883259
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013, 05:18 AM   #649
Handley_Page
Literotica Guru
 
Handley_Page's Avatar
 
Handley_Page is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 34,136
I would not describe myself as an ardent climate sceptic, but I hate what our politicians are doing in the name of Green Energy. Every now and again, Science has a bit of a re-think:
New science upsets calculations on sea level rise, climate change

Ice sheet melt massively overestimated, satellites show

By Lewis Page • Get more from this author

Posted in Science, 28th November 2012 14:20 GMT

A new analysis of data from dedicated satellites shows that one of the main factors predicted to drive rising sea levels in future has been seriously overestimated, with major implications for climate talks currently underway in Doha.

The new methods involve filtering out noise from the data produced by the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) spacecraft, sent into orbit with the aim of finding out just how much ice is melting from the world's ice sheets and glaciers. Such water then runs off into the sea, providing one of the main potential drivers of sea level rise - which is itself perhaps the main reason to worry about climate change.

"GRACE data contain a lot of signals and a lot of noise. Our technique learns enough about the noise to effectively recover the signal, and at much finer spatial scales than was possible before," explains professor Frederik Simons of Princeton uni. "We can 'see through' the noise and recover the 'true' geophysical information contained in these data. We can now revisit GRACE data related to areas such as river basins and irrigation and soil moisture, not just ice sheets."

Simons and his colleague Christopher Harig tried their new methods out on GRACE data covering the Greenland ice sheet, which is of particular interest as the rest of the Arctic ice cap floats on the sea and so cannot contribute directly to sea level rise by melting. Meanwhile the Antarctic ice cap is actually getting bigger, so Greenland is probably the major worry.

According to a Princeton statement highlighting the new research:

While overall ice loss on Greenland consistently increased between 2003 and 2010, Harig and Simons found that it was in fact very patchy from region to region.

In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed the researchers to estimate that the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons every year. Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.

The rate of loss of ice from Greenland is estimated at 199.72 plus-or-minus 6.28 gigatonnes per year. So the possible acceleration of losses is only barely larger than the margin of error in the readings: it's very difficult to tell the supposed loss curve from a straight line.

In other words the possible acceleration in ice losses is barely perceptible: it may not really be happening at all. Similar results were seen not long ago in GRACE data for central Asian mountain glaciers, another suggested source for sea-level rises.

If the Greenland ice losses aren't accelerating, there's no real reason to worry about them. According to the Princeton statement:

At current melt rates, the Greenland ice sheet would take about 13,000 years to melt completely, which would result in a global sea-level rise of more than 21 feet (6.5 meters).

Put another way, in that scenario we would be looking at 5cm of sea level rise from Greenland by the year 2130: a paltry amount. Authoritative recent research drawing together all possible causes of sea level rise bears this out, suggesting maximum possible rise in the worst case by 2100 will be 30cm. More probably it will be less, and there will hardly be any difference between the 20th and 21st centuries in sea level terms.

The new GRACE research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
__________________
.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Handley Page

"Incident at Cemetery Junction"
"Pest Control"
"Mavis's Car Trip"
"Norman-the-dragon "
"Stacy & the Angel "
" Earth Tremor on Stage ? "
" Charlie's Story "
http://www.literotica.com/stories/me...php?uid=883259
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2013, 05:22 AM   #650
Handley_Page
Literotica Guru
 
Handley_Page's Avatar
 
Handley_Page is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 34,136
Biomass bummer: carbon mitigation could increase ozone

Trees make isoprene makes ozone
By Richard Chirgwin
Posted in Science, 6th January 2013 22:06 GMT

A team from Lancaster University has poured cold water on Europe’s increasing plan to increase the biomass it uses in electricity production, saying that that while non-fossil fuels can improve the carbon picture, it comes at the cost of air quality on the ground.

The problem, according to research led by professor Nick Hewitt, is that many of the forest crops that are favoured for biomass can increase ozone down at ground level.

In a study to be published Nature Climate Change, Hewitt’s team found that poplar, willow and eucalyptus trees – all fast-growing and relatively high-yield sources of biomass for conversion into fuel – emit high levels of isoprene while they’re growing.

Hewitt told Reuters that when it mixes with other pollutants in sunlight, isoprene forms ozone.

Ozone causes an estimated 22,000 deaths annually in Europe, the Reuters piece notes, and Hewitt believes a European plan to expand tree plantations under a plan to ramp up its biomass use could add another 1,400 deaths to the list.

He also fears that ozone from the plantations could reduce wheat and maize output “by $US1.5 billion since ozone impairs crop growth”.

He suggests that trees could be genetically engineered to reduce isoprene emissions, and states that plantations should be located away from urban pollution. ®
__________________
.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Handley Page

"Incident at Cemetery Junction"
"Pest Control"
"Mavis's Car Trip"
"Norman-the-dragon "
"Stacy & the Angel "
" Earth Tremor on Stage ? "
" Charlie's Story "
http://www.literotica.com/stories/me...php?uid=883259
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:37 AM.

Copyright 1998-2013 Literotica Online. Literotica is a registered trademark.