By The incredible amount of scientific fraud that continues to be uncovered in the wake of the ClimateGate scandle is really incredible, here is the latest:
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’ [DailyMail]
Make sure to read the rest of the article and the link as well as reading what is posted about this latest scandal over at Watts Up With That? This comes on the heels of both New Zealand and Australian temperature data being proven to be manipulated by climate scientists as well. Is it any wonder now why these people have been working so hard to not release their data for public scrutiny?
1:50 pm on January 25th, 2010 1
Seems as if more and more of the climate scandle involves hidden agendas. Much of it having to do with gaining more money for whoevers agenda is involved.
2:23 pm on January 25th, 2010 2
The whole thing is unraveling. I was listening to NPR on the way to work this morning (I know, I know, but it beats rap, I rather enjoy most of it). Anyway, they were doing one of their required daily stories on climate change and guess what? We are off the CO2 and back on the methane thing again. When it gets to hot (yes pun) these guys just back up and re-approach with a new chemical, process, or whatever. One thing can be counted on though; whatever the cause du jour might be, one can always trace it back to the US and developed countries.
4:22 pm on January 25th, 2010 3
This topic aside, I miss listening to NPR regularly. I especially love "This American Life".
GI: I can't find your post(s) discussing Europe pushing for use of 1990 carbon emission standards so they can pollute undetected and claim moral superiority over the US. (Or something related to that). I think that might be one thing we can agree on.
4:47 pm on January 25th, 2010 4
Thanks for the link. Here's something that was reported in that article as well:
"The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121."
So the author exaggerated the claim, and in actuality the glacier is only melting at 21 meters per year. Whew! What a relief! I bet the estimation from NASA satelite imagery that the Antartica is losing over 100 billion tons of ice each year is also exaggerated, and it's probably only a mere 50 billion tons or so.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010010…
So yeah, it's good to know that no global warming is actually taking place.
Some people on one extreme side of the argument exaggerate the evidence, while those on the other extreme side of debate look only for ways to deny ALL the evidence. End result is the average Joe is confused as hell.
6:20 pm on January 25th, 2010 5
Average Joe here.
All my average buddies and I have decided it is all a load of crap. The weather has it's own way. Those that think man can have a large impact on the weather have a large ego problem. Those pushing the idea are doing so to fill their pockets or feel otherwise important.
See? "We" are not confused — at all.
6:39 pm on January 25th, 2010 6
From now on, every time I hear some high-living, carbon-belching elitist lecture me on how I need to pay more taxes and live a lower-quality lifestyle to save the world from man-made global warming…
…I'm going to burn a plastic bag just out of shittiness.
I'll believe it when the people who tell me I must believe it start acting like they believe it.
8:43 pm on January 25th, 2010 7
Yes, and it seems the "settled science" was not so settled in other ways as well. I linked a story on my blog about how the supposed increase in weather related destruction since 1970 due to AGW was in fact not true and known to not be true when the IPCC published it. Here's the money quote:
The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC's 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s".
It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited the unpublished report, saying: "One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend."
The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.
When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."
Oops.
9:30 pm on January 25th, 2010 8
Maybe 'confused' is not the right adjective for the average Joe who can dismiss an extremely complex issue without the burden of trying to understand the issue from both sides. I stand corrected.
9:50 pm on January 25th, 2010 9
It would help if your "scientist experts" would stop making massive mistakes during calculations that support their funding and position. I seem to recall in ME402 re-checking my answers several times least an A become an F. And then there is that whole "let's lie" set of e-mails.
10:49 pm on January 25th, 2010 10
Who said no global warming is taking place? This is the typical line of the eco-evangelists of people who question the dogma. The climate has been warming for decades has for the past decade flat lined and actually cooled the past few years. This all has no correlation to whether or not I drive an SUV.
http://rokdrop.com/2009/12/14/what-they-wont-tell…
However, the climate has been hotter before, the climate models have all been wrong, and climate scientists have been proven over and over again to be colluding to hide and manipulate facts.
The thing that frustrates me more then anything is that the global warming faith has ultimately set back real environmental efforts. People have pumped so much money and energy into this other environmental issues are going ignored and as people are becoming more aware of the scientific fraud they are thinking other environmentalists may be lying to them as well. A perfect example of this is that when I was visiting Tasmania a guy who ran a small breeding program for Tasmanian Devils which are going extinct due to a facial tumor disease told me that he wished that he could find a way to link the disease to global warming in order to get government funding to continue his work. The guy was operating on a shoe string budget and would actually run marathons in a Tasmanian Devil suit at various cities to raise money. How many other legitimate environmental concerns like this are going ignored or are under appreciated because of all the attention on global warming?
As Chickenhead refers to, when the people who tell me it is a crisis start acting like it is a crisis then I will believe it is a crisis. I don't see that happening any time soon.
11:44 pm on January 25th, 2010 11
Whatever happened to that coming ice age of the 70's? Was that one of those "extremely complex issues" that was dismissed "without trying to understand". Na. It wasn't profitable!
"I stand corrected"—Now don't you go talking down to me sonny! Average Joe don't mean dummy.
"An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex." —Aldous Huxley
12:28 am on January 26th, 2010 12
NASA data shows the last decade has been the hottest on record, with 1999 being the second hottest year on record. The idea that 1998 was a 'peak' and that temperatures have since cooled is not a sound argument as temperatures always vary from year to year. It's the trend that matters.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
As for the current warming trend being madmade or not is far beyond me to say. You point to a small group of scientists (among 1000s) who have exaggerated claims and then you conclude that it is an international conspiracy involving numerous independent groups and countries. I don't buy it. I'd also like to see how all of these scientists in supposed cahoots have been profiting from this. Research grants to study climate come from many countries, some (like China and India) with a strong incentive for global warming to NOT be seen as man made, and yet the exceeding majority in numerous studies still conclude that it is happening. What, you don't think there is any money in conducting research that could show global warming in NOT happening?
The experts could be wrong as some were about the supposed coming ice age in the 1970s (and by the way, does anyone even know what percentage of the scientific community was pushing that anyway?). But who knows, maybe they aren't. For every link you provide from sources claiming global warming is questionnable, there are other sources which answer them. Are you really reading those too?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=…
8:31 am on January 26th, 2010 13
Warmer, not warmer, who knows? What we do know is the mission statement of the IPCC specifically says 'report without regard to politics', but they are clearly trying to exaggerate for attention. And that of course leads to credibility issues.
I think we should all take better care of the climate and environment whether it is man caused or not. But don't make claims that are not supported.
Bush + fake WMDs = Iraq lie. IPCC + false data = Climate lies.
So for those that support the IPCC but bash the Bush lies, it's called 'hypocrisy'.
2:23 pm on January 26th, 2010 14
Why do you guys quote data from Jim Hansen who is notorious for hiding data just like the CRU folks and when someone reversed engineered his numbers he was shown to be a fraud:
http://rokdrop.com/2007/08/15/its-official-global…
Now that he is being forced to answer FOIA requests slowly emails are coming out showing the problems over there:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/foiad-email…
Hansen’s name also pops up in the ClimateGate emails so he is well known with the alarmist crowd and may have learned temperature manipulation tricks from them which he is now being accused of:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/more-on-joh…
These temperature tricks are all being uncovered now such as in New Zealand and Australia where they were used to show warming trends.
Because of the data manipulation as well as the urban heat island effect, satellite temperature data is proving to be the most accurate which shows the cooling:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-tempera…
Even former Australian of the Year Tim Flannery who is notorious for his alarmist scaremongering has admitted that temperatures have in fact cooled:
We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate…We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend. [ABC.net]
As far as your Scientific American link it is full of holes such as denying that global temps are cooling and even points to the IPCC report to support claims. Notice that the SA article was written before the IPCC report has since been torn to shreds with the head the IPCC likely to be removed because of all the conflicts of interest and money he was making from the fraudulent claims he put into his report.
If you want to read a list read this:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,26638…
12:33 pm on January 27th, 2010 15
Your referencing reports based on data that was proven to be manipulated and incorrect. In the IT field we have an acronym called GIGO. Garbage In = Garbage Out, no matter how accurate and awesome your logarithms and program is, if the input data is bad, then the output from the program will be bad. The input data was manipulated and sometimes just plain made up. The models used were hand tweaked to produce a warming trend that didn't exist.
If the scientists / researchers involved were confident in their data / information, if they were correct in their predictions and theory's, then WHY all the work to hide and manipulate the information. If the production of CO2 is indeed causing the world to heat up then it should be easy to demonstrate and be readily available through research. OPEN REAL research and peer review, not this (I approve your paper and you approve mine) crap they've been doing.
Or did you totally blow off the emails with the guy saying out he successfully used the trick to "hide the decline" (the cooling trend we entered into a few years ago). Also the discussion of removing the Medieval Warming Period from the temperatures records because its existence disproved their models and theory's. During the MWP the earth was warmer then it is now, much warmer. We didn't go extinct, the world didn't end. And we sure as hell were not producing much CO2.
FYI, the amount of man made CO2 vs natural CO2 is extremely small. Most CO2 production is from the natural decay of carbon based matter, either on land or at the bottom of the sea (it floats up through the ocean and into the atmosphere) or produced from volcanically active regions. Their entire theory is based on the idea that the rather small amount of CO2 produced by man will tip the natural balance in the atmosphere and cause a positive feedback that would cause run away warming / end of the world.
But… there is no proof that CO2 cause's a positive feed back loop, and all current evidence points that it actually is a negative loop because of cloud formations.
12:37 pm on January 27th, 2010 16
I agree completely, anyone who has to lie to win an argument / debate, didn't have a point to begin with.