Climate Science Slipping? -- Check the FACTS

[hazlnut]

Climate Science Slipping?

It's almost embarrassing that with all the information we have on global warming and climate change, that a group like FactCheck.org still has to do articles like this to answer the partisan deniers.

In our article on Climategate, we cited overwhelming scientific consensus — represented in part by the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — pointing to a global rise in temperatures. But the IPCC’s credibility has been challenged since we wrote that article, with several situations coming to light in which the panel reproduced erroneous results from non-peer-reviewed literature.

This article by FactCheck.org specifically answers recent challenges to IPCC's credibility. Deniers cling to the tiniest discrepancy in data on the smallest aspect of climate science... Scientists doing research in a related field, are not even allowed to update or correct his work without the likes of Jim Inhofe jumping all over it with like a vindictive partisan hack.

There is this moronic denial about the nature of climate science--as if researchers are working in a controlled laboratory. Many deniers of this science have no background in science and therefore can't understand the entire range of studies associate with climate and the environment.

One error in one specific area does not debunk decades of research, peer review, and consensus in many related fields.

Himalayan Glaciers: The IPCC’s 2007 Working Group II report misrepresented the melt rate of the Himalayan glaciers, saying they could be gone by 2035. The IPCC has admitted this alarming claim is untrue.

A letter in the journal Science traced the incorrect data to a report from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that cited a decade-old article from the magazine New Scientist, which had quoted Indian scientist Syed Hasnain. The scientist now says he was "misquoted" and that his research indicates that only small glaciers could disappear entirely.

Despite this retraction, the IPCC says that it still stands behind the synthesis report, which collects the conclusions of three different working groups, and which does not repeat the 2035 error. Working Group II’s subject is the potential effects of climate change on the natural and human environment. The physical basis for climate change is covered by Working Group I — no errors have been uncovered in that report.

 

[American]

You know why they are being jump on, and rightly so? Because they create alarm, so that we have to make global level changes NOW! They don't want to wait for a thorough analysis, they want to steer the world right now, and cost everyone $billions, and for what? All for data that is inconclusive at best. No, no these SOBs ought to be hung for what they've done, it's a crime against humanity.

 

[Gill]

One error in one specific area does not debunk decades of research, peer review, and consensus in many related fields.

One error???

There have been at least 10 significant errors in the most recent IPCC report.

 

[VanceMack]

Climate Science Slipping?

It's almost embarrassing that with all the information we have on global warming and climate change, that a group like FactCheck.org still has to do articles like this to answer the partisan deniers.



This article by FactCheck.org specifically answers recent challenges to IPCC's credibility. Deniers cling to the tiniest discrepancy in data on the smallest aspect of climate science... Scientists doing research in a related field, are not even allowed to update or correct his work without the likes of Jim Inhofe jumping all over it with like a vindictive partisan hack.

There is this moronic denial about the nature of climate science--as if researchers are working in a controlled laboratory. Many deniers of this science have no background in science and therefore can't understand the entire range of studies associate with climate and the environment.

One error in one specific area does not debunk decades of research, peer review, and consensus in many related fields.

Have you bought your carbon credits from Goreco? Have you paid for an in-home analysis and lifestyle review to assure you are carbon neutral?

 

[ptif219]

So now fact check is showing their bias.

That means the fact that there is corruption and lies by the IPCC and NASA does not matter. What a BS piece of crap. This article is trying to justify the lies and corruption that keeps make news almost every week now.

 

[VanceMack]

so now fact check is showing their bias.
.

now???

 

[Deuce]

You know why they are being jump on, and rightly so? Because they create alarm, so that we have to make global level changes NOW! They don't want to wait for a thorough analysis, they want to steer the world right now, and cost everyone $billions, and for what? All for data that is inconclusive at best. No, no these SOBs ought to be hung for what they've done, it's a crime against humanity.

Decades of work isn't thorough enough for you?

edit: Don't answer that because it's a stupid question. A thousand years of work wouldn't be enough with you because the conclusion does not fit what you want it to be.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So now fact check is showing their bias.

Everyone knows that there has long been an anti-right wing bias in science, math, economics, and history. Nothing new there.

It's obvious that the IPCC made some claims that are largely unsubstantiated about Rainforest loss, sea level rise in some low lying countries, and accelerated melting of Himalayan Glaciers.

The debate in science though is not about whether all things being equal will increased concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere result in a warmer climate. That is basic thermal physics. The question is - since all things are never equal - how much we will warm over the next century due to human activity. Will we just warm another degree or so, which would not be that big of a problem, or will we warm 6 to 8 degrees, which would be catastrophic.

This notion however that the entire premise behind anthropogenic global warming is somehow in question is absurd and is based in pure ignorance. Personally, I hope the guys that think we might just warm another degree or so by 2100 are right. Energy independence and dealing with a whole host of environmental issues are a lot easier if we don't have to also worry about reorganizing our entire economies.

 

[Goyboy]

Climate Science Slipping?

It's almost embarrassing that with all the information we have on global warming and climate change, that a group like FactCheck.org still has to do articles like this to answer the partisan deniers.

:roll: The FactCheck article ends like this:

We’ll leave it to our readers to judge how much these mistakes undermine the credibility of the IPCC, or of climate scientists generally.

It's almost embarrassing that, with all the errors made in reports on global warming and climate change, people are still criticized for questioning the science supporting the theory of global warming.

 

[ptif219]

Everyone knows that there has long been an anti-right wing bias in science, math, economics, and history. Nothing new there.

It's obvious that the IPCC made some claims that are largely unsubstantiated about Rainforest loss, sea level rise in some low lying countries, and accelerated melting of Himalayan Glaciers.

The debate in science though is not about whether all things being equal will increased concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere result in a warmer climate. That is basic thermal physics. The question is - since all things are never equal - how much we will warm over the next century due to human activity. Will we just warm another degree or so, which would not be that big of a problem, or will we warm 6 to 8 degrees, which would be catastrophic.

This notion however that the entire premise behind anthropogenic global warming is somehow in question is absurd and is based in pure ignorance. Personally, I hope the guys that think we might just warm another degree or so by 2100 are right. Energy independence and dealing with a whole host of environmental issues are a lot easier if we don't have to also worry about reorganizing our entire economies.

The IPCC only puts in reports what benefits their agenda. Any facts to the contrary are left out.


FOXNews.com - New Climate Agency Head Tried to Suppress Data, Critics Charge


But Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist affiliated with the University of Colorado who has crossed horns with Karl in the past, says his appointment was a mistake. He accused Karl of suppressing data he submitted for the IPCC's most recent report on climate change and having a very narrow view of its causes.

The IPCC is charged with reviewing scientific data on climate change and providing policy makers and others with an assessment of current knowledge.

Pielke said he agrees that global warming is happening and that man plays a significant role in it, but he said there are many factors in addition to the release of carbon into the atmosphere that need to be studied to fully understand the phenomenon. He said he resigned from the IPCC in August 2005 because his data, and the work of numerous other scientists, were not included in its most recent report.

In his resignation letter, Pielke wrote that he had completed the assessment of current knowledge for his chapter of the report, when Karl abruptly took control of the final draft. He said the chapter he had nearly completed was then rewritten with a too-narrow focus.

One of the key areas of dispute, he said, was in describing "recent regional trends in surface and tropospheric temperatures," and the impact of land use on temperatures. It is the interpretation of this data on which the intellectual basis of the idea of global warming hangs.

In an interview, Pielke reiterated that Karl "has actively opposed views different from his own." And on his Web site last week, he said Karl's appointment "assures that policy makers will continue to receive an inappropriately narrow view of our actual knowledge with respect to climate science."

He said the people who run the agencies in charge of climate monitoring are too narrowly focused, and he worries that the creation of the new office "would give the same small group of people the chance to speak on the issue and exclude others" whose views might diverge from theirs.

Responding to the criticism, Karl told the Washington Post, "the literature doesn't show [Pielke's] ideas about the importance of land use are correct."

Calls to The Commerce Department and to Karl's office went unanswered.

The IPCC in recent weeks has come under severe criticism after e-mails, hacked from a prestigious climate center, revealed some of the political infighting that occurred as its assessments were being put together and called into question its impartiality.

 

[American]

Everyone knows that there has long been an anti-right wing bias in science, math, economics, and history. Nothing new there.

It's obvious that the IPCC made some claims that are largely unsubstantiated about Rainforest loss, sea level rise in some low lying countries, and accelerated melting of Himalayan Glaciers.

The debate in science though is not about whether all things being equal will increased concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere result in a warmer climate. That is basic thermal physics. The question is - since all things are never equal - how much we will warm over the next century due to human activity. Will we just warm another degree or so, which would not be that big of a problem, or will we warm 6 to 8 degrees, which would be catastrophic.

This notion however that the entire premise behind anthropogenic global warming is somehow in question is absurd and is based in pure ignorance. Personally, I hope the guys that think we might just warm another degree or so by 2100 are right. Energy independence and dealing with a whole host of environmental issues are a lot easier if we don't have to also worry about reorganizing our entire economies.

You can't prove this statement in any way. Go ahead and try.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You can't prove this statement in any way. Go ahead and try.

The premise behind anthropogenic global warming is that with all things being equal increased concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere will warm the climate.

Esun = AEsun + Eatm + (1-Asfc)Esfc

If that is a difficult concept for you, here is a nice little picture to make it easy.

 

[Renae]

The premise behind anthropogenic global warming is that with all things being equal increased concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere will warm the climate.

Esun = AEsun + Eatm + (1-Asfc)Esfc

If that is a difficult concept for you, here is a nice little picture to make it easy.

What a pretty picture!

Anyhoots, the gig is up on AGW. On "Climate changing"? It always has, always will. Man isn't ausing this change, man cannot affect this change to any real degree, and crtainly not to the level you people want to claim we can.

 

[Gill]

The premise behind anthropogenic global warming is that with all things being equal increased concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere will warm the climate.

Esun = AEsun + Eatm + (1-Asfc)Esfc

If that is a difficult concept for you, here is a nice little picture to make it easy.

The theoretical warming from CO2 alone is minuscule and matches the small temperature rise we've seen in the past 100 years. CO2 alone cannot raise temperatures to the levels claimed by alarmists.

The models on which the entire theory of AGW rest, rely on forcings from other substances to get to the catastrophic global warming they predict. Chief among those is water vapor. AGW alarmists and their models claim water vapor is a positive forcing, raising atmospheric temperature by several degrees beyond what CO2 alone can.

There are many counter theories that claim that water vapor is a negative forcing on temperature. Since the observed rise in global temperature closely matches predictions assuming water vapor is a negative forcing, I tend to believe that theory.

Richard Lindzen wrote a paper several years ago with the theory that the atmosphere has an infrared iris and that it reacts to changes in temperature by adjusting water vapor and the resulting cloud cover. The increase in water vapor and cloud cover results in a lowering of temperature, especially near the equator. I firmly believe that Lindzen's paper will one day be proven correct.

 

[ptif219]

Hopefully congress will investigate allegations against the IPCC and NASA.


http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climat...al-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate Files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Science.

This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before today’s hearing, alleges:

[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

As has been reported here at Pajamas Media over the last several months, the exposure of the Climategate Files has led to a re-examination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency’s Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Since the Climategate Files were released, the IPCC has been forced to retract a number of specific conclusions — such as a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — and has been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”

Based on this Minority Staff report, Senator Inhofe will be calling for an investigation into potential research misconduct and possible criminal acts by the researchers involved. At the same time, Inhofe will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

 

[Goyboy]

I consider myself neutral in regards to the global warming debate.

I am just glad that the debate is happening.

Originally, when Al Gore began promoting his belief about global warming, he wanted us to believe that there was no reason to have a debate at all. Yet, science permits debates.

As for the FACTS, they are what is slipping, which is why the raw data needs to be reviewed.