Fuck it, I'm going independent.
Thread: Global warming is over
11-21-2009, 11:53 PM #111"In order for the light to shine so brightly, the darkness must be present." -Francis Bacon
"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." -George Chakiris
11-22-2009, 01:33 AM #112
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
11-22-2009, 01:59 AM #113
Climate change deniers claim they're censored. What hypocrites | George Monbiot | Environment | guardian.co.uk
One of the allegations made repeatedly by climate change deniers is that they are being censored. There's just one problem with this claim: they have yet to produce a single valid example. On the other hand, there are hundreds of examples of direct attempts to censor climate scientists.
Most were the work of the Bush administration. In 2007 the Union of Concerned Scientists collated 435 instances of political interference in the work of climate researchers in the US.
Scientists working for the government were pressured by officials to remove the words "climate change" and "global warming" from their publications; their reports were edited to change the meaning of their findings, others never saw the light of day. Scientists at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the US Fish and Wildlife Service were forbidden to speak to the media; James Hansen at Nasa was told by public relations officials that there would be "dire consequences" if he continued to call for big cuts in greenhouse gases.
Philip Cooney, a senior White House aide who previously worked at the American Petroleum Institute, admitted to Congress that he had made hundreds of changes to government reports about climate change on behalf of the Bush government.
Among other changes, he had struck out evidence that glaciers were retreating and inserted phrases suggesting that there was serious scientific doubt about global warming. In the UK, both Viscount Monckton and Martin Durkin, the director of Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle, have threatened to sue people who have criticised the claims they've made about the science.
Where, on the other hand, is a single verifiable instance of a climate denier being silenced by the authorities? They have yet to produce one. But it suits them to cry wolf. They love to imagine that they are important enough to censor. The claim chimes with their paranoid invocation of a great conspiracy – involving most of the world's scientists, most of the world's governments, most of the world's media and a few hundred million others – to suppress the truth about global warming.
Now we have another marvellous instance of this hypocrisy. Anthony Watts spends much of his time maligning climate scientists and environmentalists on his blog Wattsupwiththat. But while he can dole it out, he can't take it. As Kevin Grandia of desmogblog shows, Watts has just used US copyright laws to take down a YouTube video which exposes his claims. Grandia has since reposted the video (see above) so you can see for yourself what all the fuss is about.
It is not clear how his copyright was infringed by the video, but the US laws have been widely used by other people to block material that they don't like. Websites are obliged to remove any video which is subject to a takedown request, and they can put it back up only if they win an appeal. I charge Watts with the accusation he unjustly levels at other people: this looks to me like an attempt to silence his critics.
11-22-2009, 02:05 AM #114
For those interesting in the debunking of some of these denier myths:
Climate Denial Crock of the Week
Like the author says, the idea is to examine the evidence directly, all of it, not just cherry-picked evidence as the deniers often use, including picking a few weather stations to include in their assessment of changes in temperature instead of all available reports as they should have.
Good videos at Crock of The Week including this one:
[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NJEouqefis"] Denial Was a River in Africa[/YOUTUBE]
Right, some of the evidence came from World Bank reports -- that last great bastion of liberal thought. Yeah.
That Larry Brilliant too - helping eradicate small pox around the world. Damn him and his research on the effects of climate change on migration patterns.
11-22-2009, 02:06 AM #115
Bob Ward: This climate email-hacking episode is generating more heat than light | Environment | guardian.co.uk
This climate email-hacking episode is generating more heat than light
Another skirmish has broken out in the long-running battle between climate scientists and so-called sceptics, with the hacking of email messages between some of the world's leading researchers on global temperature trends. But as usually happens in the blogosphere, this episode is generating more heat than light and is likely to lead to more public confusion over the causes of climate change.
For the past few years, a small group of climate change 'sceptics' have been poring over scientific journal papers that report historical trends in temperatures from around the world, as recorded by directly by thermometers and other instruments, and by 'proxies', such as tree rings. Their primary objective has been to seek out evidence that global warming has been invented by climate researchers who fake their data.
Among their main targets have been papers published by research teams led by Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University and Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia, and particularly those featuring the famous 'hockey stick' graph, showing that average temperature in the northern hemisphere was relatively stable and constant for most of the last couple of millennia, but rose dramatically upwards in the last 100 years. This graph appeared prominently in the landmark Third Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2001, which concluded that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".
The attacks on the hockey stick graph led the United States National Academy of Sciences to carry out an investigation, concluding in 2006 that although there had been no improper conduct by the researchers, they may have expressed higher levels of confidence in their main conclusions than was warranted by the evidence.
The 'sceptics' believe they have been vindicated and have presented the hockey stick graph as proof that global warming is not occurring. In doing so, they have ignored the academy's other conclusion that "surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence".
More importantly, these skeptics have not overturned the well-established basic physics of the greenhouse effect, namely that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and increasing its concentration in the atmosphere causes the earth to warm. They also have not managed to make melting glaciers and rising sea levels, or any other evidence of warming, disappear into thin air. But they have managed to confuse some of the public about the causes of climate change.
Over the past five years, Mann and Jones in particular have been subjected not only to legitimate scrutiny by other researchers, but also to a co-ordinated campaign of personal attacks on their reputation by 'sceptics'. If the hacked e-mails are genuine, they only show that climate researchers are human, and that they speak badly in private about 'sceptics' who accuse them of fraud.
It is inevitable as we approach the crucial meeting in conference in Copenhagen in December that the sceptics would try some stunt to try to undermine a global agreement on climate change. There is no smoking gun, but just a lot of smoke without fire.
• Bob Ward is Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science
11-22-2009, 02:36 AM #116
Fair and Balanced, For Real
Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists | Environment | guardian.co.uk
The revelations did not alter the huge body of evidence from a variety of scientific fields that supports the conclusion that modern climate change is caused largely by human activity, Ward said. The emails refer largely to work on so-called paleoclimate data - reconstructing past climate scenarios using data such as ice cores and tree rings. "Climate change is based on several lines of evidence, not just paleoclimate data," he said. "At the heart of this is basic physics."
Ward pointed out that the individuals named in the alleged emails had numerous publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. "It would be very surprising if after all this time, suddenly they were found out doing something as wrong as that."
Professor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, features in many of the email exchanges. He said: "I'm not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I'm hoping the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows."
When the Guardian asked Prof Phil Jones at UEA, who features in the correspondence, to verify whether the emails were genuine, he refused to comment.
The alleged emails illustrate the persistent pressure some climatologists have been under from sceptics in recent years. There have been repeated calls, including Freedom of Information requests, for the Climate Research Unit to make public a confidential dataset of land and sea temperature recordings that is "value added" by the unit before being used by the Met Office. The emails show the frustration some climatologists have had at having to operate under such intense, often politically motivated, scrutiny.
Prof Bob Watson, the chief scientific advisor at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said, "Evidence for climate change is irrefutable. The world's leading scientists overwhelmingly agree what we're experiencing is not down to natural variation."
"With this overwhelming scientific body of evidence failing to take action to tackle climate change would be the wrong thing to do – the impacts here in Britain and across the world will worsen and the economic consequences will be catastrophic."
11-22-2009, 12:29 PM #117"We grow up thinking thatï»¿ beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs areï»¿ easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud ofï»¿ a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."
11-22-2009, 12:33 PM #118"We grow up thinking thatï»¿ beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs areï»¿ easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud ofï»¿ a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."
11-22-2009, 05:07 PM #119
1. The scientists actually care about the issue they're studying and express that in their emails.
2. Alleged tampering of results by a a few scientists at East Anglia or perhaps a reference to a method used by them. We don't know, for sure, which side that fell on.
Even if we were to assume the above two to be true, the following remains:
1. The above scientists are a small number of the total number of climate change scientists worldwide, along with other research from a variety of disciplines documenting the effects on flora, fauna and human life that climate change is already having. We're experiencing the effects now - no need to wait for the future. That's what the video highlighted as well.
2. There is a variety of evidence used to document climate change. The temperatures from weather stations across the globe is actually just one way. The evidence from this line, in spite of tampering by the other side, still shows that temperatures have been increasing. All the other types of evidence hold as well. That is how scientific progress is made - through a preponderance of evidence. We know which side this preponderance is on. One sensationalist Calgary Herald article or an incredibly politicized administration is not going to change the evidence.
3. Taking the emails, the issue really highlighted here, at face value -- it should be clearly pointed out that these scientists along with hundreds of others pointing to similar effects have published their findings in peer-reviewed academic journals. These follow a blind process where their peers would have closely examined the data and results. This takes 6-8 months with revisions. It's not so simple to publish an academic piece without serious review in these top journals.
4. There is clear evidence (former administration officials confessing their role) that the Bush administration did a lot of harm to the evidence provided by climate change scientists, including changing the wording of their reports to undermine the urgency of the subject.
It's not a question of conversion, it is one of making up your own mind based on the evidence provided to you and an understanding of how scientific progress is made. If you pick up two reports of 100 and use them as proof that climate change is not a real issue, it's a disservice to everyone who is confused about the issue. We could call each side converts and learn nothing about the actual process and the effect on our planet. Or, we could take the time to examine all the evidence and make an informed decision. The choice should be available to all as well as clear indication of the consequences.
Let's take a look at the numbers themselves:
The Center for Inquiry/office of Public Policy did a check of all the people, especially scientists listed as opposing the climate change thesis in senate minority report:
"This research produced the following information on the 687 people listed in the Senate minority report. Categories included name, education, summary of publications in the refereed literature based on the better-known climate science and solar physics journals, current institutional affiliations, and professional identifications.
The proportion of them who have published articles on climate science proved to be slightly less than 10 percent. Rounding off, a total of 15 percent exhibited a significant publication record in subjects at least related to climate science. We found no evidence that 551 (~80 percent) had any peer-reviewed publications bearing on climate science. At least fifty-five had no science credentials at all, and many others identified as meteorologists proved to be weather reporters. Almost 4 percent expressed support for the general consensus supporting anthropogenic causes of global warming, the near-consensus expressed by the IPCC-2007 science report, and therefore should not have appeared on the list in the first place.
Yeah -- that's the evidence above from the people who oppose the climate change thesis. Majority have not even done work that has been reviewed and published in top journals making what they suggest a matter pf opinion that hasn't been vetted by their own discipline. Wow.
The above is from a great piece written by a NASA scientist who identifies as a skeptic and explains the evidence. Whoever is confused about the issue, I recommend reading this for good advice on how to understand the evidence and particularly the false idea that there is a large debate on the effects of human activity on climate patterns. There is no such large debate.
The last word from the same NASA physicist:
Where does this leave us? As concerned citizens we need to recognize that we are dealing with a two-step decision process. The first step is getting the science right. There is no doubt that a large majority of the scientific research community thinks global-warming-driven climate change is due primarily to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. That there remains a much smaller number of research scientists who disagree and that no one can claim certainty about this complex problem is equally true. This makes it relatively easy for those who wish to delay or prevent action to claim to the public that there is a big controversy over the science, implying that action, and especially expensive action, would be unwise. However, the evidence suggests otherwise. That there is a big and growing scientific controversy over anthropogenic sources of global warming is almost certainly untrue.
So, you can listen to your local weatherman/woman or a NASA scientist. Yes 55 people were weather reporters and not even scientists. Wow. The choice is, of course, yours. I'll let everyone decide for themselves.
When you find more compelling evidence, do pass it along.
11-22-2009, 05:35 PM #120
Finally, clarifying how the IPCC scientist Mojib Latif's presentation was misquoted in the New Scientist article that used his work as support for the climate change deniers lobby:
The original audio of Dr. Latif's work is available here:
WCC3 Recorded Videos
It's called Advancing Climate Prediction Science. Please listen to his words that do nothing but underscore what we already know about temperature changes.
In the short run, when we look at a decade or two, natural changes have a greater impact. We could see short term cooling or warming in this short run (decade figures). The important trend is not the short run prediction but the long run patterns based on past temperatures (the only ones we know for sure) which clearly demonstrate that there is a significant increase in temperatures and relate it to human activity. The long run view (a century) is the one, Dr. Latif suggests, we should pay attention to because we have more accuracy in the long range statistical models. Makes sense, right?
Perhaps his own words where he says, "I'm not a skeptic"... would give us clear evidence that he was not actually questioning climate change itself.
World's climate could cool first, warm later - environment - 04 September 2009 - New Scientist
Latif has since said in interviews that his words were widely misquoted. His own model is not even equipped to make prediction two decades in advance Yeah, he can't say with any certainty which way things are going to go after 2015. Wow. That's sure evidence against climate change. He also has an article in Nature which confirms, as expected that warming is the long run pattern.
By Mole in forum Politics, History, and Current EventsReplies: 7Last Post: 10-31-2011, 06:49 PM
By entropie in forum General PsychologyReplies: 17Last Post: 11-07-2009, 05:16 AM
By matmos in forum Politics, History, and Current EventsReplies: 55Last Post: 04-25-2009, 03:18 AM
By Virtual ghost in forum Politics, History, and Current EventsReplies: 63Last Post: 08-20-2008, 04:30 AM
By Nocapszy in forum Home, Garden and NatureReplies: 80Last Post: 04-09-2008, 11:18 AM