Slashdot Mirror

It's not global warming that's happening, it's global greening.

https://www.thegwpf.org/matt-r...

Much of the plastic collected for recycling in europe ends up to shady places in china and other less developed countries. In which the process of handling the waste is less than perfect.

http://www.thegwpf.org/new-rep...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
"It is feared that an increasing proportion of waste set aside for recycling is now being thrown into the sea."

I doubt the operators receiveing the waste make much difference with European waste and American waste. That is to say, most likely both will end to the environment. Shipping trash for recycling to some 3rd world country is a fraud. They may have cheap labor there, but I doubt they have the high tech and proper processes to handle everything cleanly and enviromental friendly way.

This commentary published by The Wall Street Journal, written by Fred Singer, claims that warming (and therefore greenhouse gas emissions) has no effect on global sea level rise. Although Singer concedes the physical fact that water expands as its temperature increases, he claims that this process must be offset by growth of Antarctic ice weasels.

Scientists who reviewed this opinion piece explained that it is contradicted by a wealth of data and research. Singer bases his conclusion entirely on a cherry-picked comparison of sea level rise 1915-1945 and a single study published in 1990, claiming a lack of accelerating sea level rise despite continued warming. But in fact, modern research utilizing all available data clearly indicates that sea level rise has accelerated, and is unambiguously the result of human-caused global warming.

I think what we are seeing is the start of a new strategy for the religion climate change.

It *used* to be dire predictions getting ever closer and more dire, but that didn't seem to work, so now they're transitioning to monetary measures.

Expect the "costs" of global warming to get ever more expensive, dire, and immediate... until that's seen as not working and they transition to something else.

It's getting so bad that climate scientists are giving science a bad name. (Here's an easier-to-read digest of that essay.)

From the linked articles:

There are many examples where the transition from paid employment in climate research to retirement has been accompanied by a significant change of heart away from acknowledging the seriousness of global warming. It seems that scientists too are conscious of the need to eat, and like everyone else must consider the consequences of public dissent from the views of the powers-that-be. One example was Dr Brian Tucker. He was the Director of the Australian Numerical Meteorology Research Centre, and subsequently became Chief of the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research. He was heavily involved in the development of the IPCC. During his time with CSIRO he was the ‘go to’ man for journalists and radio programmers seeking stories on matters to do with climate change. On retirement he became a writer and speaker for the Institute of Public Affairs, and greatly surprised his former colleagues with his very public change to an openly sceptical view on the subject.

There's a scientific consensus that the world has got warmer in the last hundred years and that human CO2 emissions are a significant part of the cause of that. There isn't a scientific consensus that the planet will turn into Venus unless we stop emitting CO2, or that there will be any catastrophic consequences at all.

In fact CO2 emissions have continued to rise since the first IPCC report and warming has undershot the least bad case of the models.

https://www.thegwpf.org/matt-r...

The models

The climate models have failed to get global warming right. As the IPCC has confirmed, for the period since 1998,

"111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations". [IPCC Synthesis report 2014, p 43]

That is to say there is a consensus that the models are exaggerating the rate of global warming.

The warming has so far resulted in no significant or consistent change in the frequency or intensity of storms, tornadoes, floods, droughts or winter snow cover.

As two climate scientists, Richard McNider and John Christy, have put it,

"We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate."

In 1990, the first IPCC assessment included this statement, forecasting a temperature increase of 0.3 C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 C to 0.5 C).

In fact in the two and half decades since, even though emissions have risen faster than in the business-as-usual scenario, the temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.15 C per decade based on surface measurements, or 0.12C per decade based on satellite data; that is, less than half as fast as expected and below the bottom of the uncertainty range!

What about 2015 and 2016 both being record hot years? Well, because of the massive El Nino, the HADCRUT4 surface temperature line just about inched up briefly in early 2016 into respectable territory in among the lower half of the model runs for a few months before dropping back out again. That's all.

The settled science is that we're putting carbon dioxide into the air by burning fossil fuels, and that this is warming things up.

Which Matt Ridley and most 'skeptics' agree on

https://www.thegwpf.org/matt-r...

These days there is a legion of well paid climate spin doctors. Their job is to keep the debate binary: either you believe climate change is real and dangerous or you're a denier who thinks it's a hoax.

But there's a third possibility they refuse to acknowledge: that it's real but not dangerous. That's what I mean by lukewarming, and I think it is by far the most likely prognosis.

I am not claiming that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas; it is.

I am not saying that its concentration in the atmosphere is not increasing; it is.

I am not saying the main cause of that increase is not the burning of fossil fuels; it is.

I am not saying the climate does not change; it does.

I am not saying that the atmosphere is not warmer today than it was 50 or 100 years ago; it is.

And I am not saying that carbon dioxide emissions are not likely to have caused some (probably more than half) of the warming since 1950.

I agree with the consensus on all these points.

I am not in any sense a "denier", that unpleasant, modern term of abuse for blasphemers against the climate dogma, though the Guardian and New Scientist never let the facts get in the way of their prejudices on such matters. I am a lukewarmer.

Incidentally, some of my scientific friends accuse me of inconsistently agreeing with the scientific consensus that genetic modification of crops is safe and beneficial, but refusing to agree with the scientific consensus that climate change is dangerous. Other people - Prince Charles, for example - do the exact opposite.

Well, my friends are wrong. I agree with the scientific consensus on GM crops not because it is a consensus but because I've looked at sufficient evidence.

And in any case, as I say, I am not disagreeing with the consensus on climate change.

There is no consensus that climate change is going to be dangerous. Even the IPCC says there is a range of possible outcomes, from harmless to catastrophic. I'm in that range: I think the top of that range is very unlikely. But the IPCC also thinks the top of its range is very unlikely.

The supposed 97% consensus, based on a hilariously bogus study by John Cook, refers only to the proposition that climate change is real and partly man-made. Nobody has ever shown anything like a consensus among scientists for the proposition that climate change is going to be dangerous.

And he points out that the models have historically overestimated the amount of warming, even according to the IPCC

The models
The climate models have failed to get global warming right. As the IPCC has confirmed, for the period since 1998,

"111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations". [IPCC Synthesis report 2014, p 43]

That is to say there is a consensus that the models are exaggerating the rate of global warming.

The warming has so far resulted in no significant or consistent change in the frequency or intensity of storms, tornadoes, floods, droughts or winter snow cover.

As two climate scientists, Richard McNider and John Christy, have put it,

"We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate."

In 1990, the first IPCC assessment included this statement, forecasting a temperature increase of 0.3 C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 C to 0.5 C )

In fact in

1) The Science is Settled

2) "Oh No, things are much worse than we thought". A story based on an outlier which makes apocalyptic predictions

3) If anyone disputes this go to 1). Also accuse them of being an outlier which makes things seem less apocalyptic.

By which process the future is both known with perfect accuracy and continuously getting worse unless we adopt some expensive policy. Actually if you read carefully almost no one globally is adopting these policies. The few places that did - Germany for example - found their CO2 emissions rising, and many that ignored them completely like the US found CO2 emissions falling due to a switch from coal to fracked gas.

And if you look at instrument readings it's clear that the models overstated the amount of warming.

See for example

https://imgur.com/a/w5KKQ

From this talk

https://www.thegwpf.org/matt-r...

Ironically people like Matt Ridley who get denounced as deniers are making predictions which are near the bottom of the range of the model predictions. Meanwhile environmental activists are making predictions which are way above that range.

It's kind of disingenuous to require scientific precision from journalism. That's not its role. It's for promoting awareness. The actual arguments and data have been around a while.

Well people disagree about that

https://www.thegwpf.org/matt-r...

If you are serious about learning more, I highly recommend http://skepticalscience.com/

As a friend of mine, who was an actual peer reviewed published scientist, observed - '"Meta Studies are not science". I.e. as soon as you get someone doing a metastudy they can use ad hoc criteria to decide which paper they include and which one they exclude. In the case of "Skeptical Science" John Cook is not a scientist, he's an environmental activist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So his summaries of science include a big chunk of editorial bias. He's free to do that, but so is Matt Ridley. And both have the same credibility.

No. Personally I think global warming is happening, but it's not all that serious, i.e. I'm a lukewarmer like Matt Ridley

https://www.thegwpf.org/matt-r...

These days there is a legion of well paid climate spin doctors. Their job is to keep the debate binary: either you believe climate change is real and dangerous or you're a denier who thinks it's a hoax.

But there's a third possibility they refuse to acknowledge: that it's real but not dangerous. That's what I mean by lukewarming, and I think it is by far the most likely prognosis.

I am not claiming that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas; it is.

I am not saying that its concentration in the atmosphere is not increasing; it is.

I am not saying the main cause of that increase is not the burning of fossil fuels; it is.

I am not saying the climate does not change; it does.

I am not saying that the atmosphere is not warmer today than it was 50 or 100 years ago; it is.

And I am not saying that carbon dioxide emissions are not likely to have caused some (probably more than half) of the warming since 1950.

I agree with the consensus on all these points.

I am not in any sense a "denier", that unpleasant, modern term of abuse for blasphemers against the climate dogma, though the Guardian and New Scientist never let the facts get in the way of their prejudices on such matters. I am a lukewarmer.

Being a lukewarmer is perfectly consistent with the consensus. Ironically people saying that we'll get 20 feet of sea rise in our lifetimes are saying something inconsistent with the consensus. They're the deniers, not the lukewarmers. And actually if you look at experimental measurements of temperature models, they show warming happening slower than the IPCC's models.

https://imgur.com/a/WWeun

How bad is it going to be? Nobody really knows. If you go to the IPCC report, you'll find lots of predictions carefully assigned levels of confidence. Anything that's labeled "very high confidence" is almost certainly going to happen, and anything labeled "more likely than not" could easily not happen. We do know it's going to be bad, just not how bad.

Matt Ridley points out that the IPCC itself say that most models have over estimated warming here

https://www.thegwpf.org/matt-r...

The climate models have failed to get global warming right. As the IPCC has confirmed, for the period since 1998,

"111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations". [IPCC Synthesis report 2014, p 43]

That is to say there is a consensus that the models are exaggerating the rate of global warming.

The warming has so far resulted in no significant or consistent change in the frequency or intensity of storms, tornadoes, floods, droughts or winter snow cover.

As two climate scientists, Richard McNider and John Christy, have put it,

"We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate."

In 1990, the first IPCC assessment included this statement, forecasting a temperature increase of 0.3 degree C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 degree C to 0.5 degree C)

In fact in the two and half decades since, even though emissions have risen faster than in the business-as-usual scenario, the temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.15 degree C per decade based on surface measurements, or 0.12 degree C per decade based on satellite data; that is, less than half as fast as expected and below the bottom of the uncertainty range!

What about 2015 and 2016 both being record hot years? Well, because of the massive El Nino, the HADCRUT4 surface temperature line just about inched up briefly in early 2016 into respectable territory in among the lower half of the model runs for a few months before dropping back out again [Clive Best chart]. That's all.

Yeah, great theory. But I think you've got the financial motivation of the climate scientists backwards. They don't have Hell to pay for promoting climate change/global warming. Instead, they get continued funding. You're also wrong about how it will affect Africa. The Sahel is turning greener and the Sahara is shrinking: https://www.thegwpf.org/images...

The earth's biological productivity is rising rapidly (14% in 30 years) mainly due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere reports Matt Ridley in a Royal Society video with a transcript. Environmentalists may hate it, but it looks like good science to me. See it quicker (19 minutes), less political, and 3 years ago or for busy folk, in Snippets: (2 min) and (20 sec).

He means the imaginary ones that curiously only support the view taken by the vested interests who promote the denialism as exemplified by the gwpf astroturfing organisation et all

Once they've solved that tiny transmission and storage issue. Until then they can only work in conjunction with fossil fuel plants and play a minor role, so much so in fact that building wind today equals cementing coal & gas into the mix.

In terms of the "global warming problem", at least. The population of Australia is a rounding error. (7,050M global population - 23M Australians = still over 7B people; Australia is about 3/10th of 1%). The entire population is less than the city of Shanghai, or Karachi, or Beijing... The top 20 cities in the world have 10 X as many people of the Australian continent.

Good on them that they are voting not to piss in the wind. Specifically, this wind.

Even if humans can significantly affect the rate of change of global warming, taxing the most advanced economies is not going to help as much as doing [insert magic policy here] to change the course of the emerging economies which are going down the path that the 1st world traveled half a century ago.

It's what the scientists believe.

Really, there's a whole lot of weirdness going on in the IPCC. They come out and claim increasing certainty in global warming, while supporting scientists ask how there can be increasing certainty when their own experiments have lower confidence. The viewpoint from the United States is distorted due to inferior technology and medieval scientific procedures; the modern world has advanced far beyond the primitive tribes of the far west.

So, are you saying with a straight face that they don't pressure people who don't adhere to the "message"?

http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ri...

Here's the thing - say you're coordinating a message about things you "already agree with". What happens to the first guy who re-evaluates the information, and changes his mind? What happens to the guy who goes "off message"?

Of course they do, they're human. The difference is they aren't just brainstorming. If someone can justify why he's going off message with good evidence he gets a publication out of it.

Here's the point - your retort is applicable for *any* prediction thus made by AGW supporters. Like astrologists, you throw a bunch of stuff against the wall, ignore the failures, and then focus on whatever "hits" you get.

Put another way - what predictions have to be wrong in order for AGW to be wrong? Flat temperatures and continually rising CO2 for over 20 years? What gaps in knowledge *would* be meaningful?

This is about a predicted consequence of AGW, not a prediction of AGW. If this prediction is wrong is carries consequences for the sea level rise, it doesn't mean the earth isn't getting hotter.

We always say weather != climate, but consider weather as an example. We have science that can predict the weather with surprising accuracy, but we can still be wrong. When the weather network predicted sun and you instead got rain does that mean all their models are completely wrong, or does it mean they just got something wrong.

Multiyear ice is receding all over the planet. There's a few subsystems that don't perform exactly as we expect, single year sea ice extent is one of them, that doesn't mean we're completely wrong, just that we're not completely right.

And even then they're only coordinating the message about things they already agree with.

So, are you saying with a straight face that they don't pressure people who don't adhere to the "message"?

http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ri...

Here's the thing - say you're coordinating a message about things you "already agree with". What happens to the first guy who re-evaluates the information, and changes his mind? What happens to the guy who goes "off message"?

If physicists had a "coordinated message" about string theory, and blackballed the first guy who thought of loop quantum gravity, would you see a problem?

But you've failed to explain why this particular gap in knowledge is critical.

Here's the point - your retort is applicable for *any* prediction thus made by AGW supporters. Like astrologists, you throw a bunch of stuff against the wall, ignore the failures, and then focus on whatever "hits" you get.

Put another way - what predictions have to be wrong in order for AGW to be wrong? Flat temperatures and continually rising CO2 for over 20 years? What gaps in knowledge *would* be meaningful?

And be honest, if sea ice *extent* had been decreasing, but ice *mass* had been increasing, would you be making the same argument just with different failed predictions?

The problem isn't that we don't know everything about climate - the problem is that we can't tell *when* we don't know something about climate, and people keep insisting that we *do* know something about the climate when and where we don't.

Indeed, we do have to deal with the consequences. Which, to date, has been nothing. I have not seen one -actual- piece of evidence that shows CO2 causes the earth to warm. It is -all- conjecture/opinion.

Oh, and you're so afraid of pollution, why aren't you railing against the 4 -very- unclean (due to no regulation) power plants being built in China/Inda every week? No, -WE- have to make our lives turn upside down (bullshit cars, bullshit products, bullshit taxes, bullshit prices) to have a very minimal effect when China/India get to sponsor our carbon neutrality, multiplied by god knows how much.

Do you even know where the money you spend on carbon neutrality goes? I bet you don't even care. I bet you don't even care that "our" industrial society has moved to China.

The seas aren't warming up. Antarctic sea ice is growing. The BBC are warmist shills.

Here's the IPCC's definition of climate change from http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-introduces-new-climate-change-definition/

"Climate Change: A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use."

Hasn't that been happening on Earth for at least 4.5 billion years (or 10,000 years for those Global Warming believers)?

Yes, the climate is changing; it's always changing. So how is that a thing?

The first sentence of the definition says that climate change is the status quo. The second sentence says it may attributed to anything, right?

According to the Fossel Fuel lobby in the UK, solar and wind isn't economical, drives up the cost of electricity and gas and is bad for the environment, the money should be given on the Fossel Fuel companies instead ..

Why is Wind power so expensive? An economic analysis

Npower delivers clarity on the changing cost of energy

Except for this fact.

The *rate* at which temps have gone up over the last 17 years is 0.

Actual fact

He said nothing of the sort.

Except for this fact.

The *rate* at which temps have gone up over the last 17 years is 0. Which I assume makes your entire claim worthless. If it was caused by humans it would have contineud to accelerate, so your premise is wrong and the only "logical" conclusion is that it can't be human caused by the reasons given. Either Gore's hockey stick is right and temps kept climing, or its a lie and temps haven't increased. Now we have the facts of his prediction and they were wrong.

Hypothesis->Observation->Theory overturned. Its called science.

Lomborg's position has never changed,

http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1540-bjorn-lomborg-u-turn-on-global-warming-hardly.html

"After years of being accused of believing something I didn't believe—or, more accurately, not believing something I really did—I made headlines last month for changing my mind even though I hadn't. Confused? Imagine how I feel."

Please get your facts straight.

"When people are comparing what is happening now to those predictions, they can see they fail to match up."

Citation needed. When you are engaging in skeptical analysis, you need to show your work. If the majority of scientists agree, but you have found that they are wrong, you need to show the empirical evidence. Which predictions have you falsified? Using what data?

How about a spot check of your work? Let's see if we can tell whether your way is to use science or subterfuge.

Venice Skepticism: You reference a prediction that observed increases in the rate and severity of floods in Venice will abate over coming years, but do not provide empirical evidence that it has been abating. The paper you reference says on the first page that predicting changes in storm surge levels is inherently uncertain. It provides no significant empirical events that could be a cause for a reversal of the current trend, and relies on a new way of modelling the problem which has not been empirically tested. There is empirical evidence that it has been increasing, as well as empirically tested models that predict the flooding will continue. A claim that the current trend will reverse without empirical evidence -- with nothing more than an untested model that gives the answer you want -- is not science.

Greenland Sea Level Rise: You claim to refute the observation that the accelerating breakup of Greenland's ice sheet may lead to increased sea levels by showing evidence that the sea levels have not risen yet. The fact that levels have not risen in the past does not contradict the prediction that they will rise in the future if the Greenland ice continues to break up.

Those are the first two stories on your "False Alarms" page, not cherry-picked, just the first two. They are completely without rational or scientific merit. They are exactly the sort of thing TFA claims are at the heart of global warming criticism. I love rational skepticism -- but based on the first two examples on your own website, I can reach no other conclusion than that you are a shining example of intentional disinformation with a shoddy veneer of scientific inquiry.

"When people are comparing what is happening now to those predictions, they can see they fail to match up."

Citation needed. When you are engaging in skeptical analysis, you need to show your work. If the majority of scientists agree, but you have found that they are wrong, you need to show the empirical evidence. Which predictions have you falsified? Using what data?

How about a spot check of your work? Let's see if we can tell whether your way is to use science or subterfuge.

Venice Skepticism: You reference a prediction that observed increases in the rate and severity of floods in Venice will abate over coming years, but do not provide empirical evidence that it has been abating. The paper you reference says on the first page that predicting changes in storm surge levels is inherently uncertain. It provides no significant empirical events that could be a cause for a reversal of the current trend, and relies on a new way of modelling the problem which has not been empirically tested. There is empirical evidence that it has been increasing, as well as empirically tested models that predict the flooding will continue. A claim that the current trend will reverse without empirical evidence -- with nothing more than an untested model that gives the answer you want -- is not science.

Greenland Sea Level Rise: You claim to refute the observation that the accelerating breakup of Greenland's ice sheet may lead to increased sea levels by showing evidence that the sea levels have not risen yet. The fact that levels have not risen in the past does not contradict the prediction that they will rise in the future if the Greenland ice continues to break up.

Those are the first two stories on your "False Alarms" page, not cherry-picked, just the first two. They are completely without rational or scientific merit. They are exactly the sort of thing TFA claims are at the heart of global warming criticism. I love rational skepticism -- but based on the first two examples on your own website, I can reach no other conclusion than that you are a shining example of intentional disinformation with a shoddy veneer of scientific inquiry.

Considering that multiple independent temp reconstructions have made the Hockey Stick into a Hockey Team, his work seems to be on solid ground

Or, one could posit that the other temp reconstructions are on as shaky ground as Mann: http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/29/upside-down-proxies-baffle-the-team/ :)

( and he's been cleared of wrongdoing by 6 or 7 investigations - and no, they weren't mere cursory glances at his e-mails by colluding cronies ).

You're right, they weren't cursory glances - they didn't even *glance* at the emails.

Here, check out the details: http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf

I'm guessing that one is of the contemporary period and the other coincides with the last Dalton minimum that was aggravated by several notable volcanic eruptions. Yes, no? Good guesses or bad?

Any guess is a good guess, but in this case, it's a wrong guess. Lindzen presented this to parliament:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

Page 16. One is 1895-1946 the other is 1957-2008.

And truly, therein lies the problem - nature is perfectly capable of changing climate on its own, at the same rates we've observed in the modern CO2 spouting era. I've no doubt we humans have some effect, but the evidence is that this effect is minor, if measurable at all. The earth is simply not a fragile little teacup - it is a resilient beast that, much like your own body, maintains a form of homeostasis. In the same way that taking a warm shower won't give you a fever just because it's heating your body, our trivial contribution to a gas measured in parts per million, subject to all kinds of biological processing, is not going to show up in any sort of significant or catastrophic heating.

Interesting. The report http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/hughes-windpower.pdf states "...would require a total investment of some £120 billion in wind turbines and back-up. The same amount of electricity could be generated by gas-fired power plants that would only cost £13 billion..." OK, fine. But that's the cost of the hardware. How much is the cost of fuel to run those gas-fired power plants? Wind turbines and gas-fired plants both require maintenance and overhaul/replacement, but wind is free, however intermittent. They are also claiming pretty low capacity (10-20% of theoretical). Based on just that one section, it looks to me like they are intentionally playing games with the numbers to make wind power look much more expensive than it really is.

The data does not indicate that.

The data clearly shows no statistically significant global warming for the past 13 years.

Just as we've long suspected... IPCC really stands for Interworld Police Coordinating Company. ;)

http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/582-more-science-fiction-from-the-ipcc.html

If CO2 has increased pretty much continuously since the industrial revolution, why has the warming stalled for the last decade?

What Global warming, BEST data confirms the global temperature standstill of the past decade

There have been numerous inquiries into the matter, but to call them independent is a stretch. If they wanted the inquires to be independent, they'd have asked folk like Lindzen and Spencer to be on the inquiry panels :) Being judged by people who are partial to your point of view, who have vested interests in preserving your credibility, cannot be seen as independent.

http://www.thegwpf.org/gwpf-reports/1531-the-climategate-inquries.html

Name a single thing you believe Montford's report got wrong. Two things if you're feeling particularly optimistic :)

Given that CRU relied on a paper by Wang, which claimed to use data from known good stations to provide a low estimate of UHI effect, and that Wang can't produce the station histories he claimed to rely on, I question your assumption that climate researches properly compensate for UHI.

The climategate inquiries were hardly independent, and have been critiqued as fairly shallow whitewashes in detail:

http://thegwpf.org/gwpf-reports/1531-the-climategate-inquries.html

If you're not willing to see, it doesn't matter if you look.

I'm wondering what you mean by "the whole American Geophysical Union". Is it similar in nature to the APS?

... the study takes into account a rebounding of the Earth's crust called glacial isostatic adjustment, a continuing rise of the crust after being smashed under the weight of the Ice Age. [Slashdot summary]

Here the summary implies that previously published GRACE ice mass balance estimates didn't take GIA into account. At first I assumed this ridiculous implication must have been a mistake on Slashdot's part. Then I read the article:

... according to the new study, published in the September issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the ice estimates fail to correct for a phenomenon known as glacial isostatic adjustment. ... Often ignored or considered a minor factor in previous research, post-glacial rebound turns out to be important, says the paper. [AFP, Sep 8]

No, previous research didn't ignore (see section 2.2.4) GIA/PGR. These news stories are reporting on a paper by Xiaoping Wu et al. (free PDF). In table 2, Dr. Wu shows that his estimates are half as big as those in papers published separately by Velicogna, Chen et al. and Luthcke et al.

Luthcke et al. corrects for GIA using the ICE-5G model which combines many proxies and other empirical evidence regarding ice history since the Last Glacial Maximum, mantle viscosity and the Earth's various Love numbers. Chen et al. used the similar IJ05 model. Velicogna used multiple independent models to estimate uncertainty in the GIA signal. After reading Dr. Wu's paper, it's clear he never claimed that previous research had ignored or failed to correct for GIA.

That would have been a real surprise, because he wouldn't make a claim that can be disproven simply by skimming the papers he referenced. Nor is he rude enough (or at all, for that matter) to imply that the rest of the GRACE community ignored this important issue. Coincidentally, Dr. Wu worked for my advisor as a postdoc in the 1990s, in the same office that I'm currently using. I met him several months ago at the WP-AGU conference in Taiwan, and as far as I can tell he's overwhelmed by the bizarre attention his paper has gotten from the general public:

RUSH: There's a global warming story out. Guess what? Greenland and some of the ice floes, they're only going to melt half as much as originally forecast. So the polar bears are still going to have a place to live. I don't think they're going to melt, period. All of this is a sham.

"Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming [hoax], should be halved, according to Dutch and US scie

Mann is at the top of his field and lists well over 100 papers in his CV, many of them in journals such as Nature and Science.

Ah yes, the "he's so good and respected he couldn't *possibly* have done anything wrong!"

http://www.thegwpf.org/gwpf-reports/1531-the-climategate-inquries.html

"The way in which Mann was exonerated proved extremely controversial and even neutral commentators appeared to be taken aback by some of the panel’s reasoning. Writing in The Atlantic, Clive Crook, widely seen as a neutral on the question of global warming, said:"

“The report...says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers – so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false...
Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one them) are true, and says no. His record is swooned over. Verdict: case dismissed with apologies that Mann has been put to such trouble.”"