Michaelyya/contrarian-claims huggingface dataset:
The IPCC peer review process is not like the one academic journals use, in which reviewers actually have the authority to recommend rejection and require changes; instead it is more like a limited, voluntary public comment process. Since the IPCC gives Lead Authors the sole right to determine content and accept or dismiss comments, it is more like a weblog than an academic report.
Who pays? Oh, you guessed it before I told you. The West pays. The third world (UN code: non-Annex-I parties) thinks it will collect, so it will always vote for the UNs insane proposals. But the UNs bureaucrats will actually get all or nearly all the money, and will decide how to allocate what minuscule fraction they have not already spent on themselves. As a senior UN diplomat told me last year, The UN exists for only one purpose: to get more money. That, and that alone, is the reason why it takes such an interest in climate change. The draft says: Developed-country Parties shall provide developing-country Parties with new and additional finance, inter alia through a percentage of the gross domestic product of developed-country Parties. And, of course, The extent of participation by non-Annex-I parties in the global effort to deal with climate change is directly dependent on the level of support provided by developed-country Parties.
The fallacious alarmism surrounding the Emperor Penguins imminent extinction can be found in one of Mieslers link to the Center of Biological Diversity. The CBD is the environmental legal outfit that sued the USA to list the polar bear and Emperor as endangered species due CO2 warming. The CBD wrote, The Emperor colony at Terre Adelie in East Antarctica featured in the Academy Award-winning French documentary, March of the Penguins plummeted by more than 50% in the late 1970s during a warm period with little sea ice cover, when adults died en masse. Because the sea ice continues to disintegrate, and the prolonged blizzards cause ongoing chick mortality, the colony has yet to recover.?? And When sea ice breaks up before their chicks have matured and grown their waterproof feathers, chicks that are swept into the ocean are likely to die .
The letter goes on to preach the tired environmental-activist mantra listing the results of mans sinful actions like hottest year on record (for less than two-percent of the Earth), wildfires, droughts, and public health outbreaks (all unfortunate but not too atypical).
Agreed environmentalism has been around for centuries and one of the major proponents last century was Adolf Hitler. The hijacking of environmentalism by the left wing has caused me to write posts on many different websites, and I think that the dreadlocked Earth mother/Gaia hippies have set back legitimate concerns for the environment by decades.
Here . Evidently "Coal Kills Climate". This must be true, because it says so right on the huge banner the protesters brought with them. You might recall that both Al Gore and James Hansen have endorsed this type of civil disobedience against coal-fired power plants. You may also recall this : Gore's home may get some power from solar panels and may use enviro-friendly compact flourescent bulbs but the bulk of the home's power comes from Nashville Electric Service, which gets its power from the Tennessee Valley Authority, which produces most of its power from coal-burning power plants .
Utley recently wrote an informative post about the extent to which unfounded alarmism permeates U.S. nuclear policy. In it, he elaborates on the costs of this misplaced fear. He also identifies environmentalist special interests as a key conduit through which is disseminated misinformation about the dangers of radiation. Of course, it will come as no shock to readers of this blog that green groups manufacture alarm as a means of expanding their own influence (See: Warming, Global). Read Utleys entire, excellent post here .
I mostly find Earth Day just plain annoying for the rank hypocrisy on display. A state-sponsored religious day of worship, along with all of the 1st Amendment-violating regulations to codify it.
For over 20 years, the IPCC has been noisily agitating about an unprecedented rate of global warming at ground level where we all live They told us that a predicted rise in surface temperatures of 3-6C by 2100 had the potential to harm mankind in a myriad of ways. These warnings certainly attracted our attention. They were the bait.
Though scientists might indeed say this, not so long ago the same scientists gave scientific reasons for an intimate connection between the poles global warming was going to warm those regions the most, because of their lack of water vapour. They change their tune now that observations show different behaviour (though they dont know why), but for years they were telling us the poles were doomed. Not that Massom mentions it.
German science used to be, and is in many areas,still highly regarded worldwide. But in the area of climate science, it has been reduced to politics and masterplanning .
It is not that simple to tell who is and who is not a climatologist or an expert on climate change and global warming. Ross McKitrick once said that ?there is no such thing as an ?expert? on global warming, because no one can master all the relevant subjects. On the subject of climate change everyone is an amateur on many if not most of the relevant topics.? (as quoted by R. M. Carter, ?The Futile Quest for Climate Control,? Quadrant, November, 2008, p. 10; online atwww.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2008/451/the-futile-quest-for-climate-control). In his recently published book Climate: The Counter Consensus (2010), Prof. Carter suggests that ?scientists who study climate change come from a wide range of disciplines? which he ?groups into three main categories? (p. 22). He claims that ?most of the scientific alarm about dangerous climate change is generated by scientists in themeteorological and computer modeling group, whereas many (though not all)geological scientists see no cause for alarm when modern climate change is compared with the climate history? (p. 23). This structuring seems to be useful.
Many climate experts are scientifically illiterate, and get confused by this graph showing the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature
So then we come to climate science. In normal science, the literally trillions of dollars are NOT on the line. In normal science, theories are provable, money is minimal, and fame comes when you do something truly unique. In climate science, proof of correctness is probably 20 years out as a minimum. There is massive and immediate money on the line, and perks for concluding unprecedented global warming include, huge fame, easier publication, financial rewards, and control over government policy. Therefore, it should be no surprise that the politics of the situation have thoroughly corrupted the science of climate.
We see below how many of the UWA hosts benefit from climate change grants, and thus would potentially gain from promoting a baseless smear against critics who threaten their funding or status. These hypocrites are happy to promote the untruth that skeptics are funded to speak, when the they themselves are the ones who benefit financially from a dubious scare campaign. The professors-at-large program is supposed to foster public debate, but four of the ten Oreskes hosts signed a letter seeking to silence a skeptic from speaking at another university.
In 1988,Hansenforecast that parts of Manhattan would be underwater by now, and that crime would greatly increase due to global warming.
Climate models have been used by the political entity called the IPCC for almost 2 decades to support a political agenda known as the UNFCCC. In those 2 decades, apparently the climate science community hasnt bothered to check to see whether it matters that the spread in absolute modeled global mean temperature is three times greater than the warming thats taken place since pre-industrial times.
"Until climate science is funded independent of desired energy policy outcomes, we can continue to expect climate research results to be heavily biased in the direction of catastrophic outcomes," Spencer wrote.
This is one of many points that I had wanted to draw to the attention of the UN's climate panel last year when the technical support unit met in Hawaii (these bureaucrats love their fancy hotels in exotic locations, paid for at your expense and mine) to conduct what was called the "scoping" meeting for the fifth quinquennial climate assessment report of the climate panel, due to be published in 2013. I was invited, and duly registered on line, but the moment the narrow and poisonous faction that controls the scientific input to the panel realized I was coming a very senior scientist prominent as the first named lead author of one of the previous UN climate assessments wrote to me making it very plain, in effect, that anyone who dared to raise difficult questions would not be welcome, and he refused to allow me to attend.
As noted, the defects in the IPCC process, and the official expert advisory process more broadly, have gone unacknowledged and unremedied by what I call the environmental policy milieu, and the critics have been largely disregarded. This high-level official failure, as also the defects themselves, are easily accounted for: both have resulted from chronic and pervasive bias.
I would have advised the moderator, Jeffrey Mervis, to focus on somewhat different topics, ones that might have made the scientists a bit less comfortable: the blatant corruption of the peer-review process, particularly in climate science; the reality that much of what is published in very prominent peer-reviewed journals simply cannot be replicated; how journal editors mere mortals with biases of their own can be constrained from favoring some findings over others in the publication process; the efforts of some politicians Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) is a prominent example to criminalize dissent from climate orthodoxy through the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act statutes.
Frankly, the whole process, not just the discredited Dr Pachauri (in shut-eyed denial at a press conference yesterday), needs purging or it will drag down the reputation of science with it. One of the most shocking things for those who champion science, as I do, has been the sight of the science Establishment reacting to each scandal in climate science with indifference or contempt. The contrast with the thorough investigation of the Hauser affair is striking.
when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.
Among the scientific disciplines, the concentrated climate panic is confined to the specialized interdisciplinary clique of self-described "climate scientists", a scholarly discipline that was pretty much created and greatly inflated with the very purpose of spreading the climate hysteria and to make it look "connected to science".
The most recent example of the failure of editorial and peer review occurred in a September 2007 article in a U.S. journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The authors claimed to show that pollen from GM corn was injurious to certain insects in a laboratory mock-up of an aquatic ecosystem, but their conclusions are dubious, and their methodology sloppy and inadequately described. More important, the researchers reported elsewhere that they had failed to find these same effects in studies in the field, details they neglected to reveal in the PNAS article. This is a critical omission because laboratory studies are designed to mimic what happens in the real world. In other words, even if the laboratory studies had been performed correctly and carefully, positive results arguably would have been irrelevant because they do not sufficiently mimic what happens in the field.
As the extremists lose the argument and become more desperate, that is changing. John Abraham, a lecturer in fluid mechanics at a bible-college in Minnesota has recently issued and widely disseminated a hilariously mendacious 83-minute attempted rebuttal of a speech by me about the climate last October in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Does this sneering sentiment represent a strident admission by Oreskes ??? and by extension, her comrades in the real ???denial?? camp ??? that she has no fear of ??? nay, embraces socialism? Is she saying, along with Newsweek Magazine, ???We are all socialists now!??? Does she believe (and hold in disdain the fact) that the American Founders also gained ??? after one of the most thorough, brilliant, and inspired studies in comparative governments and their flaws in ???the course of human events?? ??? a ???paranoid ideological fear?? of the Leviathan State?
Lake Level Rise Much Faster Than IPCC Predicted
The reason that these professional organizations claim there is a consensus is that the very limited individuals who make these policy statementsdo not permit their membership to vote, or to present alternative viewpoints. The Senators to whom this letter were addressed should reach out for a broader range of inputs with respect to the role of humans in the climate system.
Some excellent coverage of the climate change angle to the Queensland floods from Andrew Bolt , including some shameful attempts to exploit the situation by arch-warmist David Karoly. There is a strongly worded rebuttal from another academic, Prof Stewart Franks.
P.S. I??ve read the book. Responding to all its disinformation is like getting a root canal without anaesthetic. I??m glad that Brandon Shollenberger has considered some of the points, but, even with the considerable effort that he??s made, he??s only scratched the surface of the disinformation. It amazes me that the climate ???community??, which one presumes as having some residual scientific standards, not only takes no offence at Mann??s disinformation, but even embraces it.
Gleicks integrity seems to have nothing to do with scientific integrity, but rather loyalty to and consistency with what I have called the UNFCCC/IPCC ideology .
Although it may sound a bit like sour grapes, heres the way that Ive rationalized Natures editorial decision. Ive become convinced that many of the editors of the high impact journals are inclined to cast opinion pieces as salvos in the ongoing war between climate change believers and skeptics. Articles like mine that take issue with the way in which the war is being waged are not particularly welcome. By soliciting opinion pieces and by selecting, from among the growing list of contributed articles, the very few that will be sent out for peer review, the editors promote their vision of what constitutes groundbreaking and policy relevant science. What if it is not the right vision?
How would a more politically diverse scientific community improve this situation? First, it could foster greater confidence among Republican politicians about the legitimacy of mainstream science. Second, it would cultivate more informed, creative, and challenging debates about the policy implications of scientific knowledge. This could help keep difficult problems like climate change from getting prematurely straitjacketed by ideology. A more politically diverse scientific community would, overall, support a healthier relationship between science and politics. It should come as no surprise that the increasing politicization of science has come to make science more political rather than politics more scientific. At the same time, the more partisan and/or and ideological that you are, the more welcome and comfortable that you will find the politicization of science, as it reenforces your preconceptions.
But I am hoping this essay will promote some self reflection among climate scientists regarding their own ethical conflicts and values. Unfortunately, I suspect this essay will also trigger a backlash from the consensus police (absence of such a backlash would help disprove my thesis ha ha), but I am pretty much immune to all that at this point.
Further ?vindication? of the Climategate emailers was to follow, of course, in Muir Russell?s equally probing investigation. To be fair, Russell manages to issue a criticism or two. He says the scientists were sometimes ?misleading??but without meaning to be (a plea which, in the case of the ?trick to hide the decline?, is an insult to one?s intelligence). On the apparent conspiracy to subvert peer review, it found that the ?allegations cannot be upheld??but, as the impressively even-handed Fred Pearce of the Guardian notes, this was partly on the grounds that ?the roles of CRU scientists and others could not be distinguished from those of colleagues. There was ?team responsibility?.? Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of the university which houses CRU, calls this ?exoneration?.
The government, backed by their butt buddies at the IPCC are not going to warn us, they are not going to admit that global warming was flawed science at best and an out and out con at the worst.
In early June the Daily Caller reported that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year pause in global warming: They adjusted the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record. This is what Heartland and others have been fighting against and exposing since the global warming hoax began in the late 1980s. And we are beginning to see the Congress respond.
Warm Bias: How The Met Office Mislead The British Public
The Clean Development Mechanism delivers the greatest green scam of all
This represents politically assisting the IPCC to enable UN, EU, and US bureaucrats and political appointees to avoid official email channels for specific official work of high public interest, performed on official time and using government computers, away from the prying eyes of increasingly skeptical taxpayers.
They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade yet they have the gall to tell us its worse than expected. These people are not scientists. They over-estimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they cheat and lie to conceal the truth.
Let's sum up: we now have ironclad proof that a) there is no data proving global warming even exists, b) the IPCC scientists knew that the data didn't support their views and created dummy results to get the answer they wanted, and c) thy used their undeserved respect in the scientific community to suppress any research which contradicted them, regardless of its scientific merit.
Lets look at the next station over at Elmira, N.Y. Guess what, exactly the same data tampering they knocked three degrees off the past temperatures and made the cooling trend disappear. The early part of the 20th century was cooled five degrees. What possible error could require five degrees of data tampering?
In lockstep with temperature, IPCC scientists needed to show a monotonic increase in CO2 such that the correlation with temperature was apparent at least since 1950/1960.So CO2 records have also been manipulated. One manipulation was the arbitrary changing of the age of the gas trapped in the upper part of an ice core, where the pressure changes were less drastic than in the deeper parts. In the upper part of the core, taken from Siple, Antarctica, the ice was deposited in the year 1890, and the CO2 concentrationin it was 328 ppmv (Friedli et al. 1986, Neftel et al.1985), and not the 290 ppmv needed to prove the man-madewarming hypothesis. The same CO2 concentration of 328ppmv was measured in the air collected directly from the atmosphere at the Mauna Loa volcano, Hawaii, 83 years laterin 1973 (Boden et al. 1990). So, it was shockingly clear thatthe pre-industrial level of CO2 was the same as in the second half of the 20th Century.To solve this problem, these researchers simply made an ad hoc assumption: The age of the gas recovered from 1 to 10 grams of ice was arbitrarily decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped! This was notsupported by any experimental evidence, but only by assumptions which were in conflict with the facts (Jaworowski 1994a,Jaworowski et al. 1992b). The corrected proxy ice data were then smoothly aligned with the direct atmospheric measurements
The main impression that I get from the emails is that the various scientists think that I and other requesters are simply doing this to harass them. Nothing could be further from the truth. I respect actual scientists, I??m short of time myself so I understand time pressures, so I have no desire to put any scientist to any extra effort beyond providing what science requires a full accounting of the data, the methods, and in some cases the computer code used to do the research. Anything more is harassment but anything less is scientific obstruction. And if they would provide those things when they publish their results, they??d never hear from me. And if Nature Magazine and Science Magazine and the National Science Foundation and all of the journals and funders would just enforce their own existing rules on archiving and transparency, the problem would be solved. But noooo, for the select friends of Phil these bothersome transparency regulations are ignored and overlooked.
But Gavin did a trick. He cooled the baseline temperatures, so that half of the tampering is cooling before 1970, and half is warming after 1970.
There is no scientific basis for any of it. None whatsoever. The whole thing has been made up by a tiny handful of malevolent, radicalized scientists highly placed in various Western meteorological organizations. If you want to know who they are, read online the Climategate emails that they exchanged with one another over the past ten years. You will be struck as I was by just how nasty these fraudsters are.
Why do climate scientists bother to gather data when the go-to methodology is to manipulate it to prop up the global warming agenda?
In CRU??s evidence to Muir Russell, Briffa, with his characteristic inconsistency, contradicted his earlier statement that they had not ???considered?? the possibility of additional data. Not only did he contradict this earlier statement, he stated that the original intention and objective of the Briffa et al 2008 article was to produce an integrated Polar Urals/Yamal series (along the lines that Climate Audit had wondered about), and that this objective was not pursued only because it was felt that this work could not be completed in time:
Currently public emails show Mann was unable to provide even his close colleagues data he used in some of his papers and could not remember which data sets he used. A query to UVA shows the university, who owns the data and notebooks resulting from sponsored research, had no copy of Manns logbooks and never gave him permission to take them with him when he left UVA. The university refused to inquire within Manns department as to whether anyone there knew whether he even kept a research logbook, so its impossible for me to know whether he stole the logbook or just never prepared one in the first place.
According to recently disclosed e-mails from a National Academies of Science listserv, prominent climate scientists affiliated with the U.S. National Academies of Science have been planning a public campaign to paper over the damaged reputation of global warming alarmism. Their scheme would involve officials at the National Academies and other professional associations producing studies to endorse the researchers pre-existing assumptions and create confusion about the revelations of the rapidly expanding Climategate scandal.
Mann, Wahl, Ammann, Ritson, Ramsdorff are all dining out on the fact that von Storch et al 2004 did not implement a detrending step in their implementation of MBH98. (Although given that Mann would not be "intimidated" into releasing his algorithm and cited Zorita et al 2003 to us as evidence that people could implement his algorithm, they should be embarrassed that people still could misinterpret their methodology. )