Home » Global Warming, Off Topic » Climate Panel on the Hot Seat

Climate Panel on the Hot Seat

Nepotism and dishonesty…

Climate panel on the hot seat
By H. Sterling Burnett
The Washington Times
March 14, 2008

More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.

To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a “comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world’s glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC’s work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.

In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the “hockey stick.” This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.

However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC’s peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.

Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick.

These problems led Mr. Wegman’s team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming “cannot be supported.”

The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren’t recorded from large areas of the Earth’s surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

14 Responses to Climate Panel on the Hot Seat

  1. Well this article critiques methods and interpretation but I read an article that was posted at the Cato institute by Patrick Michaels who is on the IPCC, and he says even worse than method and interpretation mistakes is the very system whereby the theory is being deduced. Michaels said that the “computer simulations” (where have we seen this before) of the global warming theory had three times as much co2 postulated into the projected warming scenarios as is lily to occur.

    The bottom line is the scientific community is lying. It misinforms and indoctrinates all the small minded people who dot have the intellectual talent to scrutinize the current false methods then counts these dummies as among “the overwhelming consensus” that global warming is man made.

    But even if we went into an ice age, don’t expect the true believers to give up their religion now. Manny people have been born and raised on the global warming religion and consider it their life’s calling. They will defend this nonsense to the end because it means everything to them. It is their life’s purpose and the very solidification of their ego or being. If man made global warming was ever found out to be incorrect their whole world would crumble before their very eyes.

    Think about it. No where in the world has temperatures risen to any extent BY ANY SCINETIFIC MEASUREMNT that resulted in consequences that negatively impacts people’s lives. Yet, people are so brainwashed that they consider this “catastrophe” to be of utmost importance and the calling of their life.

    I had a teacher last semester who told me that “it is possible that in time we will have the technology to reduce or eliminate our use of green house gasses “but” there is not enough time left because science has shown, we must act now!

    There is big money and big influential desire in global warming being true. All the various political factions that use it as a political tool to facilitate their “other agendas.” All the researches making money off the study of this nonexistent phenomena, all the students that are studying to get a job involved with the nonexistent phenomena. The media uses it as a tool to legitimize their purpose and importance in people’s lives- the “if it bleeds it reads theory.” The list is endless.

    Oh and not to mention, the globe COOLED last year… but expect them to try and convolute and lie about that too.

  2. Oh and not to mention, the globe COOLED last year… but expect them to try and convolute and lie about that too.

    Actually the tack thats being used here is to ignore the evidence. I have seen no discussion about the significant cooling in the last year in any major media. I have only heard about it here, and on the sites that this site links to.

  3. …when scientists finally conclude that the Global Warming scare was just plain wrong, what happens to the scientists who likened the doubters to “holocaust deniers”? Will Al Gore make a complete retraction and state, “…you know, I didn’t know what I was talking about it…”. Given that the internet is a vast repository of information, one could write a pretty good book on what the Gloabl Warming people actually said…or could they? Here’s an interesting comparison. Back during the Duke Lacrosse Rape story, a web site popped up about this time called “Justice4twosisters”. On this blog, the writer was absolutely sure that a hate crime had been committed at Duke. After the charges were dropped, I did a search for this site and got this; “Sorry, the blog you were looking for does not exist”. My guess is that Al Gore and all the others will never apologize, never print retractions, and will never be held accountable. They will, to paraphrase Rush Limbaugh, “head for the tall grass”.

  4. In the March issue of Physics Today is an “opinion” piece by Nicola Scafetta of Duke University and Bruce J. West of the US Army Research Office in North Carolina, entitled “Is climate sensitive to solar variability?”

    In this subscription-only article, the authors report the results of a “complexity matching” analysis and comparsion of the Global surface temperature (GST) anomaly with the observed total solar irradiance (TSI).

    Their analysis finds information in the variations currently discounted as “noise” by the IPCC, and their conclusions are the following:

    “We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction used. Furthermore, if the Sun does cool off, as some solar forecasts predict will happen over the next few decades, that cooling could stabilize Earths climate…”

  5. bfast says,

    “I have seen no discussion about the significant cooling in the last year in any major media. I have only heard about it here, and on the sites that this site links to.”

    Of course befast, that is because the world is in love with the global warming fraud. It makes the lives of so many especially the media, so why would they want to disprove it?

    Look at who the country (the US) has running for president (on either side) its a joke. The world has come to nothing but the demand for power and money. Maybe we should congradulate the Darwinists for teaching our kinds in school that nothing matters except increasing your gene’s chances of reproduction.

    As long as global warming can be linked to that, expect “Truth” to take a back seat.

  6. GilDodgen,

    I didn’t like much of Glen’s’ diatribe but, i did like the one line of his…

    “remember, scientists are never wrong in the present, they are only wrong in the past.”

    His point is excellent. That is, lets be a little more skeptical as human beings OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, (even if they are “supposed” scientists) and not buy into sensational crap.

    Sadly, most people are currently religiously committing the fallacy by authority. That is, “well if a scientist says it, it must be true.”

    I could give you a list a mile long of scinetific claims and theories that went the was of the dodo.

  7. Year of global cooling by David Deming, December 19, 2007 Washington Times

    International Conference on Climate Change

    Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud

    John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.

    “Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question,” Coleman said.

    “Since we can’t get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,” Coleman said. “I’m confident that the advocates of ‘no significant effect from carbon dioxide’ would win the case.”

    Manhattan Declaration demands abandonment of emissions reduction efforts

    A group of dissident scientists and climate researchers has affirmed that there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity cause climate change, and has called on world leaders to abandon all efforts to reduce emissions “forthwith.”

  8. DHL Thanks a mil for posting those links! Great links… especially this one-

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html

    Everyone should take the time to watch Coleman’s interview.

  9. Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC’s peer review process.

    Mason has a very good statistics program and economics program (2 Nobel Laureates). It is no surprise congress went to Wegman. Wegman is associated with the Department of Computational Science and Informatics and School of Information Technology. It was part of a culture that boasted around 200 (or some insane number) of PhD candidates at any given time….

  10. bFast @ #2:
    “I have seen no discussion about the significant cooling in the last year in any major media.”

    It is similar to the scant coverage that Ron Paul and fellow Texan protesters have received over the proposed international NAFTA Superhighway, going on for more than two years now.

    The objective is to consolidate Canada, the US and Mexico into a North America Union (similar to the EU), thereby completing the trilateralist agenda of putting three strong strong international government bodies into place. This would explain why illegal immigration from Mexico is allowed by a government having the powers to effectively seal the borders via the Patriots Act. But don’t count on mass media to keep you up-to-date.

    Hats off to people like Lou Dobbs, though.

    See
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=MBmFrYWPoG8

  11. Sovereignty International, a globalization-monitoring organization focused “on threats to national sovereignty in public policies,” just put out a report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) in response to IPCC.

    A summary of the pertinent facts follows:
    The so-called ‘hockey-stick’ diagram of warming has been discredited.
    Evidence of warming is not evidence that the cause is anthropogenic.
    The correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide levels is weak and inconclusive.
    Computer models don’t provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
    Observed and predicted ‘fingerprints’ don’t match.
    The global temperature record is unreliable.
    Global warming prior to 1940 was not anthropogenic.
    The role of solar influences on the climate can no longer be neglected.
    Internal oscillations play a major role in climate change, yet cannot be forecast.
    Computer models do not consider solar dimming and brightening.
    Computer models do not accurately model the role of clouds.
    Computer models do not simulate a possible negative feedback from water vapor.
    Computer models do not explain many features of the Earth’s observed climate.
    Computer models cannot produce reliable predictions of regional climate change.
    Estimates of recent sea-level rise are unreliable.
    ‘Bottoms-up’ modeling of future sea levels does not uniformly predict rising sea levels.
    Each successive IPCC report forecasts a smaller sea-level rise.
    Forecasts of more rapid sea-level rise are not credible.
    Past trends in atmospheric levels of CO2 are poorly understood and controversial.
    Carbon dioxide sources and sinks are poorly understood.
    The role of oceans as CO2 sources and sinks is a major source of uncertainty.
    The IPCC’s estimates of future anthropogenic CO2 emissions are too high.
    Higher concentrations of CO2 would be beneficial to plant and animal life.
    Higher concentrations of CO2 are not
    responsible for weather extremes, storms, or hurricanes.
    The economic effects of modest warming are likely to be positive.

    It should be noted that the same organizations and foundations endorsing and certifying the anthropogenic lies are also working behind the creation of the EU constitution in supplanting ID and other such threatening causes.

    It seems like our personal freedoms and liberties are at stake, no matter from what angle you look at it.

  12. Sorry for the mangled paragraphs in # 11 above. I thought the bullet codes were going to work.

  13. A few quotes from the NIPCC report are relevant to the discussion of ID, dissent in science, and the perils of consensus thinking. Emphases are mine.

    In his speech at the United Nations’ climate conference on September 24, 2007, Dr. Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, said it would most help the debate on climate change [insert evolution] if the current monopoly and one-sidedness of the scientific debate…by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [insert NCSE or NAS] were eliminated.

    The present report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) [insert Discovery Institute] does exactly that. It is an independent examination of the evidence available in the published, peer-reviewed literature – examined without bias and selectivity. It includes many research papers ignored by the IPCC [insert NAS], plus additional scientific results that became available after the IPCC deadline of May 2006.

    The IPCC [insert NAS] is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming [insert Darwinism] and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty [insert "Science, Evolution, and Creationism"].

    […]

    As NIPCC [insert Discovery Institute] shows by offering an independent, non-governmental ‘second opinion’ on the ‘global warming’ issue [insert evolution issue], we do not currently have any convincing evidence or observations of significant climate change from other than natural causes [insert - we don’t have convincing evidence or observations that the phenomenon of life is a result of random, undirected processes].

    […]

    It is regrettable that the public debate over climate change [insert evolution], fueled by the errors and exaggerations contained in the reports of the IPCC [insert NAS], has strayed so far from scientific truth. It is an embarrassment to science that hype has replaced reason in the global debate over so important an issue.

Leave a Reply