Prev: Can we detect a blueshift of �c?
Next: Albert Einstein didn't accept black holes or the idea of totally collapsed stars
From: Eric Gisin on 22 Apr 2010 14:30
http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/854-clmategate-and-the-crisis-of-climate-alarmism.html

Thursday, 22 April 2010 09:35 Richard S Lindzen

In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing thousands of emails and
other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain.
How this file got into the public domain is still uncertain, but the emails, whose authenticity is
no longer in question, provided a view into the world of climate research that was revealing and
even startling.

In what has come to be known as "climategate," one could see unambiguous evidence of the unethical
suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data manipulation. The Climatic
Research Unit is hardly an obscure outpost; it supplies many of the authors for the United Nations'
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Moreover, the emails showed ample collusion with
other prominent researchers in the United States and elsewhere.

One might have thought the revelations would discredit the allegedly settled science underlying
currently proposed global warming policy, and, indeed, the revelations may have played some role in
the failure of last December's Copenhagen climate conference to agree on new carbon emissions
limits. But with the political momentum behind policy proposals and billions in research funding at
stake, the impact of the emails appears to have been small.

The general approach of the official scientific community (at least in the United States and the
United Kingdom) has been to see whether people will bother to look at the files in detail (for the
most part they have not), and to wait until time diffuses the initial impressions in order to
reassert the original message of a climate catastrophe that must be fought with a huge measure of
carbon control.

This reassertion, however, continues to be suffused by illogic, nastiness and outright dishonesty.
There were, of course, the inevitable investigations of individuals like Penn State University's
Michael Mann (who manipulated data to create the famous "hockey stick" climate graph) and Phil
Jones (director of the CRU). The investigations were brief, thoroughly lacking in depth, and
conducted, for the most part, by individuals already publicly committed to the popular view of
climate alarm. The results were whitewashes that are quite incredible given the actual data.

In addition, numerous professional societies, including the American Society of Agronomy, the
American Society of Plant Biologists and the Natural Science Collections Alliance, most of which
have no expertise whatever in climate, endorse essentially the following opinion: That the climate
is warming, the warming is due to man's emissions of carbon dioxide, and continued emissions will
lead to catastrophe.

We may reasonably wonder why they feel compelled to endorse this view. The IPCC's position in its
Summary for Policymakers from their Fourth Assessment (2007) is weaker, and simply points out that
most warming of the past 50 years or so is due to man's emissions. It is sometimes claimed that the
IPCC is 90% confident of this claim, but there is no known statistical basis for this claim-it's
purely subjective. The IPCC also claims that observations of globally averaged temperature anomaly
are also consistent with computer model predictions of warming.

There are, however, some things left unmentioned about the IPCC claims. For example, the
observations are consistent with models only if emissions include arbitrary amounts of reflecting
aerosols particles (arising, for example, from industrial sulfates) which are used to cancel much
of the warming predicted by the models. The observations themselves, without such adjustments, are
consistent with there being sufficiently little warming as to not constitute a problem worth
worrying very much about.

In addition, the IPCC assumed that computer models accurately included any alternative sources of
warming-most notably, the natural, unforced variability associated with phenomena like El Nino, the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc. Yet the relative absence of statistically significant warming for
over a decade shows clearly that this assumption was wrong. Of course, none of this matters any
longer to those replacing reason with assertions of authority.

Consider a letter of April 9 to the Financial Times by the presidents of the U.S. National Academy
of Science and the Royal Society (Ralph Cicerone and Martin Rees, respectively). It acknowledges
that climategate has contributed to a reduced concern among the public, as has unusually cold
weather. But Messrs. Cicerone and Rees insist that nothing has happened to alter the rather extreme
statement that climate is changing and it is due to human action. They then throw in a very
peculiar statement (referring to warming), almost in passing: "Uncertainties in the future rate of
this rise, stemming largely from the 'feedback' effects on water vapour and clouds, are topics of
current research."

Who would guess, from this statement, that the feedback effects are the crucial question? Without
these positive feedbacks assumed by computer modelers, there would be no significant problem, and
the various catastrophes that depend on numerous factors would no longer be related to
anthropogenic global warming.

That is to say, the issue relevant to policy is far from settled. Nonetheless, the letter
concludes: "Our academies will provide the scientific backdrop for the political and business
leaders who must create effective policies to steer the world toward a low-carbon economy." In
other words, the answer is settled even if the science is not.

In France, several distinguished scientists have recently published books criticizing the alarmist
focus on carbon emissions. The gist of all the books was the scientific standards for establishing
the alarmist concern were low, and the language, in some instances, was intemperate. In response, a
letter signed by 489 French climate scientists was addressed to "the highest French scientific
bodies: the Ministry of Research, National Center for Scientific Research, and Academy of Sciences"
appealing to them to defend climate science against the attacks. There appeared to be no
recognition that calling on the funding agencies to take sides in a scientific argument is hardly
conducive to free exchange.

The controversy was, and continues to be, covered extensively by the French press. In many
respects, the French situation is better than in the U.S., insofar as the "highest scientific
bodies" have not officially taken public stances-yet.

Despite all this, it does appear that the public at large is becoming increasingly aware that
something other than science is going on with regard to climate change, and that the proposed
policies are likely to cause severe problems for the world economy. Climategate may thus have had
an effect after all.

But it is unwise to assume that those who have carved out agendas to exploit the issue will simply
let go without a battle. One can only hope that the climate alarmists will lose so that we can go
back to dealing with real science and real environmental problems such as assuring clean air and
water. The latter should be an appropriate goal for Earth Day.

Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The Wall Street Journal, 22 April 2010

From: Ouroboros Rex on 22 Apr 2010 16:25
On 4/22/2010 1:30 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:
> http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/854-clmategate-and-the-crisis-of-climate-alarmism.html
>
>
> Thursday, 22 April 2010 09:35 Richard S Lindzen
>
> In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing
> thousands of emails and
> other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of
> East Anglia in Great Britain.
> How this file got into the public domain is still uncertain, but the
> emails, whose authenticity is
> no longer in question, provided a view into the world of climate
> research that was revealing and
> even startling.
>
> In what has come to be known as "climategate," one could see unambiguous
> evidence of the unethical
> suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data
> manipulation.

Investigated, disproved.
From: josephus on 22 Apr 2010 02:01
Eric Gisin wrote:
> http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/854-clmategate-and-the-crisis-of-climate-alarmism.html
>
>
> Thursday, 22 April 2010 09:35 Richard S Lindzen
>
> In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing
> thousands of emails and
> other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of
> East Anglia in Great Britain.
> How this file got into the public domain is still uncertain, but the
> emails, whose authenticity is
> no longer in question, provided a view into the world of climate
> research that was revealing and
> even startling.
>
> In what has come to be known as "climategate," one could see unambiguous
> evidence of the unethical
> suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data
> manipulation. The Climatic
> Research Unit is hardly an obscure outpost; it supplies many of the
> authors for the United Nations'
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Moreover, the emails
> showed ample collusion with
> other prominent researchers in the United States and elsewhere.
>
> One might have thought the revelations would discredit the allegedly
> settled science underlying
> currently proposed global warming policy, and, indeed, the revelations
> may have played some role in
> the failure of last December's Copenhagen climate conference to agree on
> new carbon emissions
> limits. But with the political momentum behind policy proposals and
> billions in research funding at
> stake, the impact of the emails appears to have been small.
>
> The general approach of the official scientific community (at least in
> the United States and the
> United Kingdom) has been to see whether people will bother to look at
> the files in detail (for the
> most part they have not), and to wait until time diffuses the initial
> impressions in order to
> reassert the original message of a climate catastrophe that must be
> fought with a huge measure of
> carbon control.
>
> This reassertion, however, continues to be suffused by illogic,
> nastiness and outright dishonesty.
> There were, of course, the inevitable investigations of individuals like
> Penn State University's
> Michael Mann (who manipulated data to create the famous "hockey stick"
> climate graph) and Phil
> Jones (director of the CRU). The investigations were brief, thoroughly
> lacking in depth, and
> conducted, for the most part, by individuals already publicly committed
> to the popular view of
> climate alarm. The results were whitewashes that are quite incredible
> given the actual data.
>
> In addition, numerous professional societies, including the American
> Society of Agronomy, the
> American Society of Plant Biologists and the Natural Science Collections
> Alliance, most of which
> have no expertise whatever in climate, endorse essentially the following
> opinion: That the climate
> is warming, the warming is due to man's emissions of carbon dioxide, and
> continued emissions will
> lead to catastrophe.
>
> We may reasonably wonder why they feel compelled to endorse this view.
> The IPCC's position in its
> Summary for Policymakers from their Fourth Assessment (2007) is weaker,
> and simply points out that
> most warming of the past 50 years or so is due to man's emissions. It is
> sometimes claimed that the
> IPCC is 90% confident of this claim, but there is no known statistical
> basis for this claim-it's
> purely subjective. The IPCC also claims that observations of globally
> averaged temperature anomaly
> are also consistent with computer model predictions of warming.
>
> There are, however, some things left unmentioned about the IPCC claims.
> For example, the
> observations are consistent with models only if emissions include
> arbitrary amounts of reflecting
> aerosols particles (arising, for example, from industrial sulfates)
> which are used to cancel much
> of the warming predicted by the models. The observations themselves,
> without such adjustments, are
> consistent with there being sufficiently little warming as to not
> constitute a problem worth
> worrying very much about.
>
> In addition, the IPCC assumed that computer models accurately included
> any alternative sources of
> warming-most notably, the natural, unforced variability associated with
> phenomena like El Nino, the
> Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc. Yet the relative absence of
> statistically significant warming for
> over a decade shows clearly that this assumption was wrong. Of course,
> none of this matters any
> longer to those replacing reason with assertions of authority.
>
> Consider a letter of April 9 to the Financial Times by the presidents of
> the U.S. National Academy
> of Science and the Royal Society (Ralph Cicerone and Martin Rees,
> respectively). It acknowledges
> that climategate has contributed to a reduced concern among the public,
> as has unusually cold
> weather. But Messrs. Cicerone and Rees insist that nothing has happened
> to alter the rather extreme
> statement that climate is changing and it is due to human action. They
> then throw in a very
> peculiar statement (referring to warming), almost in passing:
> "Uncertainties in the future rate of
> this rise, stemming largely from the 'feedback' effects on water vapour
> and clouds, are topics of
> current research."
>
> Who would guess, from this statement, that the feedback effects are the
> crucial question? Without
> these positive feedbacks assumed by computer modelers, there would be no
> significant problem, and
> the various catastrophes that depend on numerous factors would no longer
> be related to
> anthropogenic global warming.
>
> That is to say, the issue relevant to policy is far from settled.
> Nonetheless, the letter
> concludes: "Our academies will provide the scientific backdrop for the
> political and business
> leaders who must create effective policies to steer the world toward a
> low-carbon economy." In
> other words, the answer is settled even if the science is not.
>
> In France, several distinguished scientists have recently published
> books criticizing the alarmist
> focus on carbon emissions. The gist of all the books was the scientific
> standards for establishing
> the alarmist concern were low, and the language, in some instances, was
> intemperate. In response, a
> letter signed by 489 French climate scientists was addressed to "the
> highest French scientific
> bodies: the Ministry of Research, National Center for Scientific
> Research, and Academy of Sciences"
> appealing to them to defend climate science against the attacks. There
> appeared to be no
> recognition that calling on the funding agencies to take sides in a
> scientific argument is hardly
> conducive to free exchange.
>
> The controversy was, and continues to be, covered extensively by the
> French press. In many
> respects, the French situation is better than in the U.S., insofar as
> the "highest scientific
> bodies" have not officially taken public stances-yet.
>
> Despite all this, it does appear that the public at large is becoming
> increasingly aware that
> something other than science is going on with regard to climate change,
> and that the proposed
> policies are likely to cause severe problems for the world economy.
> Climategate may thus have had
> an effect after all.
>
> But it is unwise to assume that those who have carved out agendas to
> exploit the issue will simply
> let go without a battle. One can only hope that the climate alarmists
> will lose so that we can go
> back to dealing with real science and real environmental problems such
> as assuring clean air and
> water. The latter should be an appropriate goal for Earth Day.
>
> Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute
> of Technology.
>
> The Wall Street Journal, 22 April 2010
>

right and his disproven paper too. the problem here is that IPCC is
science and not really deep political. certain real science will be
used by govenments. that is why it was created in the first place. so
denier sentiments are just that, opinions and worth the stuff in my
outhouse. (or catbox) it is necessary to have evidence. I have
noticed that evidence is specifically ignored. they dont have the skill
set to read the papers, they dont believe the stuff we translate for
them. they are lame and think they are sceptics because they are
ignorant and dont know anything. I have actully heard people say that
they dont need no education, they have street smarts.

josephus
--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings
From: Benj on 22 Apr 2010 22:51
On Apr 22, 2:01 am, josephus <dogb...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

> right and his disproven paper too.  the problem here is that IPCC is
> science and not really deep political.  certain real science will be
> used by govenments.  that is why it was created in the first place.   so
> denier sentiments are just that, opinions and worth the stuff in my
> outhouse. (or catbox)   it is necessary to have evidence.  I have
> noticed that evidence is specifically ignored.  they dont have the skill
> set to read the papers, they dont believe the stuff we translate for
> them.  they are lame and think they are sceptics because they are
> ignorant and dont know anything. I have actully heard people say that
> they dont need no education,  they have street smarts.

Oh sure. And we are supposed to beleive that you are so smart that
simply your WORD should stand as proof to the world! As the world
freezes all you can do is repeat your policitical propaganda lies over
and over and over. It is your opinion that has been shown to the world
as fabricated prevarications. Why don't you just hit all us
"deniers" [Use of the ver WORD proves you have ZERO credibility on
this issue] with your "ultimate proof"... The Amazing Randi says that
AGW is real! And say hello to your bosses at the Club of Rome who
invented all this bullshit.

idiot.
From: Benj on 22 Apr 2010 22:58
On Apr 22, 8:44 pm, "BOZO - Your Aussie Mate" <b...(a)excite.com> wrote:

> I red a blog that says science is lies.
>
> I believe it.- Hide quoted text -

Sorry. It's actually History that is bunk!

But when it comes to science, one soon discovers that he who pays the
piper calls the tune.
Ever notice how much of science these days is paid for by politics?

But in science what you "believe" is irrelevant. That is a religious
or political question. In science the question is what does the
evidence show? Faked evidence doesn't count. If journalists were
honest and scientists afraid of being fired,
the IPCC would be the bigest "mouse painting" scandal of all time!
[if you don't know what I'm talking about go study some history.]
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Can we detect a blueshift of �c?
Next: Albert Einstein didn't accept black holes or the idea of totally collapsed stars