Slashdot Mirror
India Ditches UN Climate Change Group
Several readers have told us that the Indian Government is moving to establish its own group to address the science of climate change since it "cannot rely" on the official United Nations panel. "The move is a severe blow to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) following the revelation parts of its 3000 page 2007 report on climate science was not subjected to peer review. A primary claim of the report was the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, but the claim was not repeated in any peer-reviewed studies and rebuffed by scientists. India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh announced that the Indian government will established a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor climate change in the region. 'There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism,' Ramesh said. 'I am for climate science.'"
I wish we had more people like that in government in the US.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
This is good news. I hope more countries follow their approach.
In general, the UN is nothing but a scam. It has no accountability, and due to how it panders to politicians and their whims, it should have absolutely no involvement in science.
Frankly, people are fed up with these supranational organizations that do nothing but cause problems. In this case, you have the UN hyping what is perhaps the biggest scientific fraud of all time. Then you have other organizations, like the WHO, hyping false "pandemics" again and again. Then there are all the copyright and IP shenanigans with the WTO. Plus the crap the IMF and World Bank pull.
To hell with those organizations.
Yeah, well I'm gonna make my own climate change group! With blackjack! And hookers! Actually, forget the climate change group...
'There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism,' Ramesh said. 'I am for climate science.'
That was nicely worded. The line is not very fine in many cases, however. The biggest difference between a climate evangelist (read: Al Gore) and a scientist is the presence of uncertainty in reporting the state of the climate. It is hard to be preachy when data remains inconclusive.
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
I'm sure that most countries, at least most relatively developed ones (and I consider India as such), already have their own group investigating climate change. Besides, I don't see any mention from the article that India is actually "ditching" the UN group. It's just establishing its own group, rather than relying 100% on the UN group to base their national policies and laws upon.
... written by hundreds of individuals = "climate evangelism". Apparently.
No, preaching something that doesn't exist and then claiming that science supports what you preach is "climate evangelism".
I'm looking forward to visiting those glaciers with my great-grandkids.
It doesn't appear as though India is pulling out of the IPCC at all. They are just sending a representative (or "minder" depending on how you look at it).
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/82542/India/India's+IPCC+'tracker'+soon.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/PM-expresses-confidence-in-IPCCs-work-lauds-Pachauris-leadership/articleshow/5540596.cms
1) Publishing is usually the beginning of peer review. SO finding a discrepency isn't uncommon
2) The person who made that statement was an Indian Scientist. SO the irony of thise story is rich.
3) is doesn't invalidate the peer reviewed papers, or the overall conclusion.
Here is a good write up:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527434.300-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html
Be sure to follow the read more link.
Yes, yes, most people want some sort of black and white answer. There isn't one, and if you are truly interested you will
read about this is reputable journal. That way you have a chance to see all the facts that lead up to this.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sounds like India intends to continue to use coal fired power plants and will not recognize studies that put coal plants in a bad light.
Where have I heard that before?
Sounds like you'd rather have someone waving their arms around chanting some mystical mumbo-jumbo than someone that understands the value and merits of the scientific method.
Because that's exactly what the CRU data is: mystical mumbo-jumbo. That entire set should have been tossed after Berkley discovered that they placed the majority of their instrumentation in areas outside of specification.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
... written by hundreds of individuals = "climate evangelism". Apparently.
No, putting in primary claims which are known to be suspect from a non-peer-reviewed journal with an agenda, for the ADMITTED purpose of 'influencing policymakers'... THAT is evangelism.
I take it that you're dropping the ridiculous notion that a couple errors in a 3,000 page document written by hundreds of people somehow means that the whole thing is invalid?
preaching something that doesn't exist and then claiming that science supports what you preach is "climate evangelism".
Yeah. I mean, only ~97% of the world's publishing climate scientists believe in it. Who cares about those who actually do the research and keep up on all of the (very extensive) literature? It's all a socialist conspiracy anyway.
In case anyone's curious how different mountain glaciers are changing, here's a nice graph.
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
Yeah a couple of errors in a scientific document that happens to impact everyone on the planet along with emails implicating some of those scientists were "massaging" the results to prove their hypothesis.
Kind of important to ensure accuracy. They haven't grasped that. Their too busy building their own unquestionable institution with grandiose threats.
Sounds like you don't know shit about this issue.
Get some inforamtion.
A) It has nothing to do with whether or not there is global warming. Only a specif effect of it. Learn the difference.
B) The Indian paper claiming the glaciers aren't melting faster then expecting is not peer reviewed.
C) Know the shouldn't have quoted New scientist as a source for the science part of the paper...and they didn't.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And speaking of global warming, isn't this this coldest winter on record?
Hmm...any unusual weather patterns? So. Cal was having an unusually cold winter. But conversely Alaska was unusually warm. Were, say, Iceland or Greenland having unusual highs?
Yeah, sadly that part requires research instead of ZOMG ITS COLD!!
Let's try to get this one out of the way early: Weather is not climate.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Yeah a couple of errors in a scientific document that happens to impact everyone on the planet
0.2 pages erroneous.
2999.8 pages not erroneous.
What a travesty!
And yes, some science does affect the entire planet, there's no getting around that. But saying "I need complete perfection or we never act on anything", you'll never act on anything.
along with emails implicating some of those scientists were "massaging" the results to prove their hypothesis.
Oh please. The decade-old emails involving two scientists, one quoted wildly out of context (the "decline" issue mentioned by Mann -- the paper the data came from *explicitly stated* that the data was invalid after that point, and what idiot would think that dendrochronology data trumps thermometer data anyway?) and the other trying to avoid having to hand over data to a bunch of amateurs who he viewed as deliberately trying to waste his time by filing spurious requests, and one of whom had previously tried to get his partner arrested?
You're not even barking up the wrong tree; you're barking up a paper cutout of a tree.
Kind of important to ensure accuracy.
I can thus only assume that if you wrote a 3,000 page document, there wouldn't be a single error in it.
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
A primary claim of the report was the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, but the claim was not repeated in any peer-reviewed studies and rebuffed by scientists.
Who would blame India for not having faith and carrying out their out climate study with an in-house panel? Did the IPCC not botch the initial rreport because someone did the School of Office Space decimal point shift in the math dealing with the melting factor of the Himalayan glaciers? I guess some counties feel that if they want something done right, they'll do it themselves. Cant' fault India for that.
First of all, there were more than just "a couple" of errors. That report is full of just plain shitty science.
Citation needed.
or caused by some other factor (the sun, for instance)
The sun? Oh my god, what a brilliant idea! Nobody has ever thought of that one before! Quick, young lad, make haste! Inform the world that people ought to consider the sun -- the single most widely studied object outside of Earth, monitored by thousands of ground-based instruments, satellites in various Earth orbits, and even custom satellites in our Lagrangian points. That data might be useful! Perhaps a couple dozen people people should write several dozen papers studying what sort of direct and indirect effects the sun might have on our climate! And then perhaps they should be summarized in the IPCC report! .... oh wait....
An XKCD comic comes to mind.
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
Try again. That wasn't the only error.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023598/after-climategate-pachaurigate-and-glaciergate-amazongate/
They make a major claim about the affect of climate change on the Amazon. The problem is the original study was done by an advocacy group (WWF), wasn't peer reviewed, and wasn't even on the subject of global warming! It was a study on wildfires.
And keep going in that vein...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/
These reports are NOT peer reviewed science and DO NOT belong in the IPCC report, which claims to be properly peer reviewed.
The IPCC fucked up big.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Take Russia. It also regularly disputes AGW claims.
At the same time, it coincidentally happens to be a major oil exporter, and world largest natural gas exporter. Its economy to a large extent depends on worldwide demand for those resources - oil alone accounts for 40% of all exports.
Internally, most (~65%) power is generated by coal and gas plants. The USSR had a long-term program for replacing those with hydro and nuclear, for resource conservation and environmental reasons, but that only got 1/3 way through - and Russia cannot afford to proceed with that anymore, and is actually struggling to maintain the Soviet legacy.
Oh yes, also, if AGW models are actually correct, then Russia will benefit in many ways. One is that warming up Siberia will create large new swaths of habitable lands. Another is that same changes, as well as melting of ice in the Arctic, will provide for much easier access to extremely rich natural resource deposits which are currently very hard (and in many cases economically unfeasible) to develop.
That's quite enough dots to connect them.
Now, I wrote about Russia, because I actually wrote about it - but are China and India any different? At the very least, they all still heavily rely on fossil fuels to power their industrialization, and cannot afford to stop there no matter the consequences. And - surprise! - China historically had been dismissive of AGW. I don't know much about past India stance on this, but it would seem that them joining the club would be expected, purely for political reasons.
No, I don't think anyone thinks that a 3000 page set of documents can be invalidated by a handful of errors.
However, I do think it is rational and logical to think that if a misleading narrative was intentionally constructed from that set of documents then that narrative might not be valid.
The problem is that you (and people like you) try to make the reductive claim that all that was wrong with the documents were "a handful of errors." That is being disingenuous, and I am pretty sure you know it.
Because that's exactly what the CRU data is: mystical mumbo-jumbo.
Just because you're too stupid to read how the data is processed or compare it to what naive processing would yield... oh who the f*** am I kidding? Yes, it's mystical mumbo-jumbo. They're just trying to make the lightning-power that walks through wires into your house and runs your picture box and your clickety email machine cost more. CARBON GOOD!
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
The reason is that we NEED others to check the work. Look, I have little doubt that this is occurring. BUT, this really needs to be checked.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yeah, that's called argumentum ad hominem. Fine, India has a ton of issues - water, poverty etc. Firstly, India is very heterogenous, far more than most Europeans and Americans can fathom. There is a large educated middle class that actually does care about the environment, and by the way does enjoy clean drinking water. Does it follow that because a substantial fraction of the country has to deal with issues the Western countries have solved, that Indians must be bound to accept the conclusions of a UN body ? Does it make them automatically incompetent to derive their own conclusions ?
It is irrelevant. If they want an independent assessment, its a good thing. After the CO2 emissions/Kyoto fiasco, Indians are wary of Western environmental policies. Most Indians see any limitation on their CO2 emissions as retarding their development due to a problem that is created largely by the now-developed nations, in the last century.
In any case, in science, as many independent investigations there are , the better the confidence in the findings. And trust me, the Indians know the entire Ganges plain is fed by Himalayan glaciers. They have a very large stake here.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
"Global warming" is not the problem. "Climate change" or whatever they're calling it this week is not the problem. Deglaciation is not the problem.
The problem is the billions of tons of ancient fossil carbon we're removing from the ground and adding to the atmosphere. All the climate / ocean / ecology effects are symptoms of that problem. That problem doesn't need "more study" or evangelism or scientific consensus, it's a simple obvious fact that anybody with high school education (even a politician or a capitalist) can understand. It's been obvious for decades, since long before "global warming" started getting any traction in public discourse.
The possible effects of the problem range from trivial and insignificant, to serious hardships of various sorts (well publicized by Gore et al), to utter catastrophe. The chances of serious hardship are high enough that we can't afford to dick around with study after study after study of complex chaotic systems trying build a model that can predict exactly, precisely, what is absolutely guaranteed to happen over the next 100 years. The chances of utter catastrophe, while still really unknown and probably very small, are still enough that we should ask ourselves why the fuck we're playing russian roulette with the whole world, when all we have to do is Stop. Putting. So. Much. Carbon. Into. The. Atmosphere.
I guess this attitude makes me an "evangelist" since I'm not advocating that we go full bore status quo until we're absolutely, positively, 100% certain with no doubt whatsoever what precise effects all this new CO2 will have in the long term. The problem is simple, the solution is obvious, the consequences are uncertain but why fuck around when the stakes are so high? How exactly are we benefiting by continuing to burn more and more and more petroleum and coal every year, mindlessly jerking around the delicately balanced ecosystem that keeps us alive?
Yes, there were a couple mistakes in a 3,000 page document
These weren't "mistakes", they were intentionally included for the purpose of raising hysteria. The people composing the report were warned by scientists that these claims were not supported before the report was written. A company partially owned by the head of the IPCC received a multi-million dollar grant to investigate the supposed loss of the glaciers in the Himalayas by 2035. Oh yeah, he then hired the guy who was the source for it (n a casual conversation with a journalist as an off the cuff comment not based on anything). So the head of the IPCC is told that there is no science behind the claim, but includes it in the report anyway and then takes a grant for millions of dollars to investigate it.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The sun? Oh my god, what a brilliant idea! Nobody has ever thought of that one before! Quick, young lad, make haste! Inform the world that people ought to consider the sun -- the single most widely studied object outside of Earth, monitored by thousands of ground-based instruments, satellites in various Earth orbits, and even custom satellites in our Lagrangian points. That data might be useful! Perhaps a couple dozen people people should write several dozen papers studying what sort of direct and indirect effects the sun might have on our climate! And then perhaps they should be summarized in the IPCC report! .... oh wait....
Yes, we've studied the Sun intently. Is that supposed to mean that we have a complete understanding of its effect on the climate? Really? Do you honestly think we have all the answers now? That we're even close to having all the answers?
That's my whole problem with the "science is settled" meme. Science is never settled. It's constantly progressing, proving old assumptions wrong much of the time. Not only is the science not settled here, its becoming more and more apparent that we don't have near the understanding of the climate that we thought we did. After all, even most of the die-hard warming advocates admit that they can't explain the current cooling trend in their models.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
LOL it was on BBC TV that the "expert that the IPCC got the "data" from was a geography students Dissertation
it was also splattered all over the Telegraph LINK HERE
the IPCC is so full of it that they have to use info from a student , which is not peer reviewed and is just an opinion of a pup in the greater scheme of things.
i think i'll take the word of the Indians and take my hat off to them for taking a stand against the UTTER SHITE that that IPCC spews! just goes to show the sheer desperation of them to use such flimsy nonsense especially after all the leeks showing the gaming of the numbers and the selective use of the Data
Come on people -- when you think of clean water, clean air, and sustainable living, doesn't your mind immediately jump to India?
Nope. When I think of India I think of hundreds of millions of people finally making the climb out of poverty to a decent standard of living. Granted, that standard of living won't let the average Indian squander nearly as many resources as the average environmentally aware American, but it's still a huge accomplishment that deserves applause and support. I'm glad to see the Indian government is not prepared to slow down or stop that economic progress to please some self-appointed guardians of the earth in the US and Europe armed with questionable data and questionable science.
Perhaps their new research group could use this as a slogan: "India: #1 In Environmental Stewardship Since The Bhopal Disaster".
Very cheap shot. The Bhopal Disaster was a disaster caused by Union Carbide, an American company.
Yes, we've studied the Sun intently. Is that supposed to mean that we have a complete understanding of its effect on the climate? Really?
Yes. Read the papers (if you need a starting point, you can find them all referenced in AR4, Ch.02). All of the sun's impacts but one (upper-atmospheric GCR shielding's role in cloud seeding) are very easily measured and straightforward on Earth, with the massive variety of different datasets matching each other. GCR provided the only degree of uncertainty to constraining the influences of the sun, and has since been much better constrained. Even the difference between peak and minimum output doesn't provide anywhere even in the same ballpark as much forcing as CO2.
After all, even most of the die-hard warming advocates admit that they can't explain the current cooling trend in their models.
Who the heck are you listening to? First off, there is no cooling trend. There is a small (25%) decrease in how rapidly it's risen due to stratospheric water vapor, a decadal-scale factor.
Seriously, stop listening to people who don't know what the f*** they're talking about.
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
The problem here is, that 97% have to BELIEVE in it. Nothing is proven. Everybody just BELIEVES in it. I stopped believing, when I started thinking. Thanks.
If you find a typo, you may keep it.
US acquires Canada, lets Mexico manage the 'former' US states of the southwest
Wherever You Go, There You Are
They used two different measuring systems, and diddled the numbers until the graphs overlapped. They used data from measuring stations that were not properly shielded from mundane human activity (I think one was actually near a pub, in Australia?) and whose data could not be normalized using nearby measuring stations. They declined to use proper measuring stations that showed a decline in temperature. And they actively, and conciously, LIED about this.
Carbon good, carbon bad, we don't know. Possibly it's not good, probably we should limit our output of it (can't hurt to be neutral), but to suppose we should spend billions of dollars on fixing a potential non-problem, trusting in what we know to be bad science, that's just fucking bullshit.
Let's look at "fluff.info", shall we?
Here, apophenia kicks in, and after you've seen that BPM and GDP are correlated, you'll have no problem inventing a model for it.
The first problem with that argument is that the hypothesis of CO2 causing warming came from *before* worldwide datasets were even availabl3e. It was first proposed in the late 1800s based on laboratory experiments showing that some gasses absorb heavily in the infrared range but minimally in the visible range. Secondly, "you'll have no problem inventing a model" for how beats per minute of a Billboard 100 song affects GDP? Really? Um, no.
There's also the problem that it is very difficult to write down a model for which there isn't another model with the causation the other way `round
Which is ludicrous in the context of CO2, since we can measure isotopic ratio changes (indicating the change in old carbon versus fresh carbon) and have good accounting for human inputs to the system versus sources and sinks. Is warming supposed to make us want to dig up more coal?
Without a model to say anything about the extra variables
Too bad we have nothing more than first principles itself to rely on...
(Actually, we do have other things beyond first principles as well! But that's another story)
For example, for many types of game, if you have two players repeating the game a thousand times, the distribution of actions that player one took will have nothing at all to do with the distribution of actions that player two took
If you're using that as an analogy for global warming, it corresponds to claiming that the laws of physics have changed. Fat luck with that.
And seriously -- do you honestly think that statisticians aren't involved in these papers? Really?
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
The correct spelling is "trillions", not "billions".
Yes, finding several major errors makes the entire document suspect. Especially given the amount of time and money that went into it. The errors that have been found are inexcusable.
That's not correct at all. If the BBC said that, then they are wrong.
The information came from an Indian scientist, reported be New Scientist. No it should not be use as an example of the effects of Global Warming, but it in no way invalidates the science. By the way the people claiming this isn't true are also basing that on a non peer reviewed paper.
See, it's a tad more complex then a simpleton like you can conceive, so you have broken it down to a boolean thinking.
SO tell me, after you read the IPCC which, specifically, part of the science is 'SHITE"? You have read it, right? No? STFU
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Based on... what? The non peer reviewed and questionable paper they used to show they aren't melting?
Interesting how people will complain about a problem with a large study, but ignore those same problems with the study the supports the belief.
I sure as hell hope those glaciers are still there for you grand kids to enjoy. If the paper they based criticism is true, the glaciers wont' be there for you grand children, children.
My Bias? facts as the current data support them. The few errors in a study this large really isn't unexpected. Science. Sadly, instead of learning context of the error, it's impact, and what part of the IPCC it occurred in, people jump to their pet belief and how this mistake 'proves' the other hundreds of papers are wrong.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Hubris, much?
We learn new things all the time about our planet, the sun, the solar system and this wonderful universe. It wouldn't take long to make a list of things we only recently learned that overturned previous 'settled science'.
This has been a bad year for your side, so I can understand your obvious frustrations.
Yes, it's completely unproven, except for the millions of spectra taken of the molecule, which show its resonance in the infrared part of the spectrum. Science, bitches — it works. Now, had you said something about the AMOUNT of heat it traps and whether that amount is significant, then we could be having an actual debate. I'll be bringing my physics Ph.D. with me, how about you?
And here you reveal the biases that inform your decision — not against the science based on any understanding of physics and chemistry, but because one of the advocates is someone with which you disagree politically. Pathetic.
Still, kudos on your all-too-accurate Slashdot ID.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Exactly. And the whole argument they're making ignores the fact that the IPCC isn't strictly limited to peer-reviewed papers. I'll quote:
"Peer reviewed and internationally available scientific technical and socio-economic literature, manuscripts made available for IPCC review and selected non peer-reviewed literature produced by other relevant institutions including industry".
Yes, the overwhelming majority of what gets cited is peer-reviewed, and anyone who looks through the references can confirm that. In the most important technical report (IMHO), Ch. 2, there's not a single WWF reference out of the many hundreds -- it's all things like Nature, Science, etc. But the IPCC is explicitly allowed to use governmental, NGO, and industry reports where there are no peer-reviewed references available. Not that you'll ever hear Watts complaining about the IPCC's use of industry reports, mind you, but that's a different story.
For example of what they're like, one of the WWF reports they cite is used to reference the following:
"The rapidly expanding tourism industry is driving much of the transformation of natural coastal areas, paving the way for resorts, marinas and golf courses"
And then:
"Recently, dredging for a massive port expansion has resulted in the destruction of more mangroves and the free ecosystem services they provided"
How many peer-reviewed reports do you think there are on tourism's effects on golf courses in Latin America? It's not like they're making a claim, "The first principles forcing for XXX is YYY" or whatnot. What they're citing is news and general knowledge from the region. Hell, if someone *tried* to fund a study on whether a port expansion in a mangrove swamp destroyed mangroves, the same people criticizing this would call it pork!
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
So why the decrease when the CO2 keeps increasing year after year?
I swear, it's like a whack-a-mole game sometimes.
No, it hasn't.
Want to know how badly the people you've been listening to have been misleading you? Take a look at a temperature graph. To get that "decrease" in temperature, they have to:
1) Cherry-pick the hottest year they can as the starting point (1998 -- one of the most intense El Nino events on record) and use that as a starting point. See the huge one-year spike in 1998? That's what they're picking as their starting point.
2) Pick a lower subsequent year and use that as an end point (often 2008, a La Nina year)
3) Pick the one (of three) major global temperature datasets that makes 1998 hotter than 2005.
4) Ignore the actual way you create a trend line (you don't just look at the start and end points -- you also include a weighted average of the intermediary points.
If you skip any one of those things, you get the opposite result. Let me explicit: anyone who pushes that point who's not just passing along something they heard from someone else is deliberately trying to hoodwink you.
In case you're curious about El Nino/La Nina: El Nino involves the weakening of the Walker Circulation, an equatorial atmospheric wind pattern. This slows the upwelling of deep, cold water in the Pacific. So the equatorial Pacific in an El Nino year has a big splotch of warm water across it, which heats the atmosphere more than usual. In a La Nina year, the Walker Circulation increases, leading to a big splotch of cold water across the equatorial Pacific, cooling the atmosphere.
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
And THAT my friend, is indeed the problem. Folks see Goldman Sachs and the other leeches lining up to cash in on "carbon credits" which is the biggest load of horseshit tried to stuff down the people's throats in decades, and they are sick of it.
If you were simply putting limits and forcing everyone to use less, like in the 70s gas crisis? That would be one thing. But when you have those pushing AGW all set up to become carbon billionaires while they fly around in their lear jets telling us we need to change? Well fuck you buddy, we can smell hypocrisy a mile away and we are about knee deep in it now.
If you want folks to get on board AGW? Get rid of the fricking leeches like GS set to cash in on everyone elses misery and assholes like the Al Gore that have quietly set themselves up to make out like fucking robber barons if they manage to get this shit passed. Otherwise expect the repubs to ride this anti AGW wave to a good decade or two of one party rule. There are enough people here sick of Nobama and his flip flops, hell I wouldn't be surprised if Caribou Barbie ended up the president.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Have you noticed that all of the complaints are from IPCC WGII and WGIII? Not like you know the difference, so let me explain. WGI is about the science of climate change. WGII is about impacts, while WGIII is about how to avert it.
In all of its reports, the IPCC is explicitly not limited to peer-reviewed materials. They can use, and I quote:
"Peer reviewed and internationally available scientific technical and socio-economic literature, manuscripts made available for IPCC review and selected non peer-reviewed literature produced by other relevant institutions including industry".
(I bolded the last part because you'll never see the deniers complaining about that, so I thought it deserved particular emphasis!). They can quote peer-reviewed material, governmental material, NGO material, and industry studies. The reason for this is because not everything on the planet is peer-reviewed. Peer-review is for science.
WG1 is almost entirely peer-reviewed. It's about science, so that's what you do. WGII is mostly about "news". While a good chunk of what it mentions is peer reviewed, it does include a number of non-peer-reviewed reports. The same goes with WGIII (which has more of a focus on policy and industry).
Most of the IPCC review effort, likewise, goes into WG1. WGII and WGIII review is much less emphasized. But the real key is that if you find something wrong with WGII or WGIII, you're not attacking the science of climate change, because those reports aren't about science. The science is in WGI. And if you find a non-peer-reviewed report anywhere in the IPCC, it is *not* violating its guidelines. WG1 just avoids them.
Sadly, some of the people who know better (Watts, I'm looking at you) love to spread misconceptions about all of this.
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
Which is ludicrous in the context of CO2, since we can measure isotopic ratio changes (indicating the change in old carbon versus fresh carbon) and have good accounting for human inputs to the system versus sources and sinks.
Regardless of what you think about climate change, you should reject this particular bad science. The isotopic ratio does not mean what is claimed.
Here is a thought experiment for you: You have a bathtub. The drain is open, the faucet is on. You also have a drip tube putting red colored water into the tub. (This is a vaguely "to scale" stand in for the CO2 in the atmosphere. Large sinks, large sources, tiny human influence.)
You then find that the bathtub is turning red. In fact, almost none of the red dye seems to go down the drain at all! Now consider what that means - does it mean that the drip tube is causing any level changes seen in the water? Obviously, it can't. If all else was equal, you'd expect the drip tube to be diluted by the ratio between the drip tube and the faucet.
The only explanation is that the drip tube's dye must not be absorbed. And, in fact, this has been shown to be true. The carbon isotopes being measured have extremely different properties when is comes to atmospheric scrubbing. So the trace isotopes in the "buried" CO2 are not absorbed, and build up in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, that says nothing about the causes of the overall level change.
I will now be modded down because I disclosed a mistake in one of the arguments commonly used in climate change debates, thus confirming the underlying issues in politicizing science.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Based on... what? The non peer reviewed and questionable paper they used to show they aren't melting?
I don't think I know what you're talking about. What paper (peer reviewed or otherwise) showed that they are not melting?
Interesting how people will complain about a problem with a large study, but ignore those same problems with the study the supports the belief.
What large study? 35 year quote that was used by a magazine, and then quoted in the report.
I sure as hell hope those glaciers are still there for you grand kids to enjoy. If the paper they based criticism is true, the glaciers wont' be there for you grand children, children.
Perhaps you haven't heard, but according to some scientists, global warming is taking a break
I think it's safe to say that the glaciers will still be there.
My Bias? facts as the current data support them. The few errors in a study this large really isn't unexpected. Science. Sadly, instead of learning context of the error, it's impact, and what part of the IPCC it occurred in, people jump to their pet belief and how this mistake 'proves' the other hundreds of papers are wrong.
For science to truly be science, it must be unbiased. When science is used to manipulate people, and all those scientists with views to the contrary are shunned and gagged, it ceases to be science - and becomes an abomination.
Everything apart from absolute wilderness is near a pub in Australia.
oh right so the linked article which shows that they used a geography students dissertation and an anecdotal story from a climbing magazine is a nonsense? it's been in many papers, on the BBC news and also on a few other programs too
It is not based on a student's dissertation, it is based on a comment made by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain to an author for the New Scientist in 1999.
Get your facts straight.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
No. They're not. Oceanic effects of solar radiation alone, and their effects on climate, are filled with some very complex models that are _not_ complete. It's like the difference between E=MC2 and designing a fusion power plant: a lot of theory and modeling and testing lie in between, and the systems are very difficult to run full-scale tests or gather long records of extremely accurate data for.
Reasonably well understood? Sure. But complete understanding. Be honest about it.
try reading the linked and even copied article above... and possibly weep into the beverage of your choice..........
Why don't you do the same? You link to a newspaper that denies Climate change while I link to a science magazine. Gee, I'll believe in science first. Oh, and I did read the "Telegraph" article.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The scientific consensus amounts to this: (1) climate is changing (2) human activities contribute to it, (3) nobody can say for sure what fraction of (1) is accounted for by (2), or how much impact we can have by altering human activities.
Are some of the reports and studies contributing to this consensus faulty. Yep. That's always the case.
What we are having though is a political debate disguised as a scientific one. The biggest determinant of position taken outside the scientific community is determined by the following factors;
A. How much you believe climate change will affect you (negative mostly or if you are Russian perhaps positive).
B. How much you believe measures to curb human contributions to climate change will help you or hurt you.
Once you've done the hedonic calculus for this, you either accept the scientific consensus and exaggerate it, or you go shopping for dissidents in the scientific community.
Personally, I suspect that even if we are the lion's share of the cause of climate change we'll never, ever manage to do anything constructive about that until we've run out of fossil fuels, because this is how people with a dog in the fight think.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Correction: A couple detected errors in a 3000 page document.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
NOAA has several gigs of data publically available via FTP, and some open format like csv. No, I'm not going to again link to them. Want to peer review that? Go for it. Or, since you're so sure that all the data is garbage, feel free to go up to any industry threatened by carbon caps and taxes, and propose them a research program that will demonstrate once and for all (ONCE AND FOR ALL!!) that there is no global climate change. Should be a cinch, right? Imagine: you'll be rich, you'll be famous, you'll be the savior of humanity!
Or, you can bitch on slashdot. Your call.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Mark me troll ALL you want, but don't be surprised when those in favor of AGW get run out of congress on a rail in 2010. Mark my words, after AIG and TARP folks are sick of "enlightened self interests" making policies that take money out of their pockets, and with Goldman Sachs setting themselves up to make so much money off the "carbon credits" scam that robber barons would blush,
And with Al Gore paying himself carbon offsets from the company he is profiting from so he can blow whatever he wants? Well you might as well hand the republicans the keys to congress and the White House now. Don't forget to turn off the lights on your way out, wouldn't want to waste energy now.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
lol... it doesn't deny climate change, what it does do it show where source material came from
And my science link didn't sat where it came from? If you want me to believe that then you didn't read it.
also i think you'll find that little things such as the CRU data leak which showed them to be a bunch of number fiddling and lying turds also throw doubt on the human cause of any climate change.
Where did I say anything about CRU? Without googling it I don't even know what the CRU is.
now where you have people fiddling numbers and using dubious sources i think it's not unreasonable to have reasonable doubt.
Oh, I agree. Let's take for instance where deniers are saying we're in a cooling trend. If fact the 2000s were the hottest decade on record. The only way to make it look like there's been some cooling is by using 1998 as the starting date. Because of El Nino that was a hot year and temperatures spiked as shown by this graph. There is no cooling, in fact the 2000s was the hottest decade.
however i think it you google a little you will find the net awash with 3660 hits for "IPCC student dissertation climbing magazine"
And if you google Syed Hasnain new scientist magazine ipcc you'll find about 200,000. The first one is the link I provided with the two following also from "New Scientist". I don't know, maybe they were both used, so I'm willing to let that go for now.
there also happens to be an ASSLOAD of people making truckloads of money out of ittwinned with a mass of rank hypocrisy
And just as above, about "people fiddling numbers", there are lots of people who could make tankers full of money out of disproving Global Warming. Coal, petroleum, and other fossil fuel industries stand to lose a lot of money if their products are regulated and or taxed. Now which has the deeper pockets, Exxon-Mobile or Greenpeace?
Now I'm not saying we have to do whatever it takes to stop Global Warming. I don't even like that term and prefer Climate Change. What I would like to see is alternative energy sources developed and for the US to work on them before we become has-beens. While China is busy building new coal fired power plants they are also busy building massive wind farms and installing solar energy systems. Mexico and the Philippines are using geothermal energy and so can the US. By one estimate, SciAm's A Solar Grand Plan, solar energy can provide 69% of the US's electricity and 35% of it's total energy by 2050 using just a part of the Southwest. And the NREL's Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the Unites States lays out the wind potential of different areas of the US. The Rockies from Canada to northern Texas for instance contain enough potential energy to supply all 48 continuous states with electricity. However they aren't the only places. On the West Coast from British Columbia to Southern CA then east through AZ and NM to west Texas there's good wind sites. To the east from the Appalachians in the south up through the Northeast there is good wind potential both on-shore and off-shore. NIMBYs, notably the deceased Ted Kennedy, did whatever they could to stop offshore wind farms. In 2007 California, already mentioned for solar and wind power, got 4.5% of it energy from geothermal sources.
Also don't
Should there be a Law?
wow.. you are entering into a debate about global warming and you don't even know what the CRU is?
well let me inform you, it's the Climate Research Unit..... they pretty much supply ALL the data for global warming enthusiasts world wide.
due to a hefty data breach a massive amount of emails and even some entries made by the poor coder who was commenting how the numbers didn't add up and things were all balls
also the were many many many emails between "respected" climate researchers" which showed them chatting about how they "played the numbers" and 2used tricks" to make up for the fact the global temperatures haven't been going their way and thus they played the numbers, used selected numbers from selected stations and ignored others then conspired.. YEAH they actually did, to perpetuate the falsehood of their finding... heads rolled and resignations came..
a quick google of CRU would have helped
and BTW i live in Scotland, where we have oil BUT we are also pretty much the European leader in renewables and very very high up there in the world stakes
also changing from global warming to climate change is a cop out.
more and more evidence is coming forward that shows a SHIT load of people are blowing smoke out their asses about the human cause of "global warming" and an awful lot more people are profiteering by the spreading of utter FUD about it too.
and the global warming hero Al fucking gore.. the rankest of all the hypocrites... spreading FUD AND a major shareholder in Occidental Petrolium and also making a fortune from the carbon con. ther are some facts about gore that may surprise you
br. always odd how when the smell of bullshit is often along the same path as the smell of hypocrisy and money
Unexciting but useful commentary on the CRU data.
http://surfacestations.org
Notice the surface station setting well inside the heat island of the waste water treatment plant.
To keep that beer cold, they need to use a heat exchanger. Many of the stations are located at the exhaust of that heat exchanger...so, yes, the cold beer will in fact cause the surface station to read hot.
The warmist are raising alarms over a few degrees warming over decades, and your dismissing an immediate heating affect of several degrees.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Annual Revenues
Oil industry (Exxon,Shell,BP,Chevron,...) $2,000,000,000,000
Fossil-Fuel-based Major Retail (Wal-Mart,Carrefour,...) $1,000,000,000,000
Automotive Industry (Toyota,Ford,Volkswagen,GM,Daimler,...) $2,000,000,000,000
Yes folks, that's 5 trillion (= 5,000 billion) dollars per year revenue, for industries
directly dependent on continuation of our massive fossil fuel burn.
---
IPCC-related scientists
Assume 4,000 scientists.
Assume average one gets $1,000,000 grant money per year. (Overestimate).
That's $4,000,000,000 at stake, (assuming, falsely, that the money is all or
mostly dependent on their finding that human GHG emissions cause global
warming.)
So let's see.
-Scientists have 4 billion dollars at stake. (Not really at stake,
but we'll imagine it was)
-Directly dependent industries have 5,000 billion dollars at stake.
That's a factor of over a 1000x more money at stake for those whose agenda
is to promote the status quo and to discredit the science.
Just putting things in perspective. Which side do YOU think is going to
have the massive public relations campaign, and massive release
of spun dis-information going on? Hmmmmm.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
No. Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas factor by a large margin. It completely swamps any possible CO2 contribution because, unlike CO2, which remains generally stable regardless of atmospheric temperature change (that's most of the basis for the claim that CO2 will incur warming, in fact), the evaporative cooling process accelerates enormously when the atmosphere warms. Warm water goes up, radiates at least half its heat spaceward in energy ranges that CO2 is largely transparent to, and then comes down (much) cooler. This cycle serves as a self-regulating heat pump from surface to space. Heat radiated in this manner is gone forever.
The real question here, especially after the scandals of the tweaked data, the lockout of contrary input, the use of glacial statistics that were entirely false, the unforgivable falsification of the "hockey stick"... the real question is: Can we call AGW good, established science?
To answer that question, one asks: Does the the global warming hypothesis give rise to models with testable predictions? Yes. There have been numerous models.
So, critically, are the results of the models compatible with the predictions made? If so, we have a theory.
But the answer to that is a resounding no. We have this stall in temperature rise; we have the failure of all the models to predict results across all latitudes at once; we have sea level changes that don't match the predicted results; we have wildly varying predictions from different models indicating fundamental disagreement among the AGW hypothesis proponents. In many cases, the models results are not in yet (predictions are for the future, and the future, to be blunt, is not here yet) and so we literally have no results at all -- merely speculation based upon models that have demonstrated themselves to be flawed over and over again. So it tuns out that we have no more than an unsubstantiated idea, a hypothesis with holes in it.
Given this situation, we reasonably can, and we should, ask the proponents of the AGW hypothesis and the resulting models to go back to their workbenches and refine those models until the predictions work out to within a reasonable margin of error. When they get it right (and they may yet do so), that is the time to get behind policy decisions that use the science -- because when the predictions work, then it is science, in the sense that now, finally, one has a theory.
Right now, AGW is a hypothesis, no more, and an entirely unsupported one at that. We don't actually know what our contributions to warming or cooling are, consequently deciding to spend huge amounts of money and effort to further muddy the waters is foolish in the extreme.
Let's put the science back in science fiction.
And, until someone builds a pub there, the wilderness is very likely to remain wilderness.
Let's put the science back in science fiction.
Sure, the scientists who are busy researching the matter, as opposed to creating phony "doubter" websites, use only those faulty stations that said doubters managed to find and photograph, and never cross-check these data with other sources.
The front page of surfacestations.org has a funny image: a location photo made in 2000s with a parking lot, a cell tower and its AC exhaust ducts near where the temperature sensor is supposedly hosted, superimposed with the graph from the same sensor that shows a steady rising trend since about 1950s. So all those asphalt coatings over the years, the cell tower installation and so on all conspired to create a neat smooth trend that keeps rising. The asphalt must have been aging without renewal, cars radiate ever more heat, and the ACs are dutifully cranked up a notch every few years. Finally, some solid debunking of climate change.
And I wrote the above even before I did a two-minute Google search that gave me more than enough information as to why surfacestations.org is full of shit.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
By definition, every scientific debate is a political one as well.
That you define "scientific debate" as "political debate" probably explains why you can't take part in a "scientific debate" as defined by others (notably scientists).
When you say "deal with it" you mean that anybody who wants to have a scientific debate has to do it on your terms. I have no idea where you got that notion.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
OK. Your choice. Believe in it. But look it up and compare to CO2 levels 2 thousand or more years ago. They were higher than today and they were lower than today. I don't see the 3%-5% CO2 addition by humans to have such an effect. The problem here is the money involved. There is a whole economy out there living on the fear of people like yoo who just believe. Imagine Obama saying: "Lets just kill this multimillion dollar, multimillion job economy and move the f*** on." I don't see it.
If you find a typo, you may keep it.
Pachauri was pushed as the head of the IPCC by none other than Dubya and his cronies, so he could discredit the IPCC. Why do you think one of the many Climategate Emails that never gets quoted is this little gem? http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
I bring the entire combined ignorance of the world that says "We don't know, we haven't tested it yet. LoL!" which nullifies your point.
Fixed that for you.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.