PDA

View Full Version : Scientists pull an about face on global warming



Gingersnap
09-22-2009, 01:03 PM
Scientists pull an about face on global warming

By Lorne Gunter, For The Calgary Herald
September 19, 2009Comments (47)

Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn't marry. That might generate the odd headline, no?

Or if Don Cherry claimed suddenly to like European hockey players who wear visors and float around the ice, never bodychecking opponents.

Or Jack Layton insisted that unions are ruining the economy by distorting wages and protecting unproductive workers.

Or Stephen Harper began arguing that it makes good economic sense for Ottawa to own a car company. (Oh, wait, that one happened.) But at least, the Tories-buy-GM aberration made all the papers and newscasts.

When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's usually newsworthy.

So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?

Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.

But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years.

"How much?" he wondered before the assembled delegates. "The jury is still out."

Calgary Herald (http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Scientists%20pull%20about%20face%20global%20warmin g/2010571/story.html)

megimoo
09-22-2009, 02:58 PM
Calgary Herald (http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Scientists%20pull%20about%20face%20global%20warmin g/2010571/story.html)
He has supported a purposeful UN and EU fallacy all of these years in hopes of gaining some sort of international recognition and it hasn't happened so now he swings the other way looking for recognition as an enlightened scientist by virtue of the facts before all of our eyes .

Take A Look at the Mutt !
http://www.ifm-geomar.de/index.php?id=mlatif&L=1

By now most enlightened thinking people have made up their minds that global warming is and always was a joke.The whole scam was just to slow down America and remove her from the global economy and that hasn't happened .Now that the World economy is in such Chaos the Warming crap is without any rational purpose.

FlaGator
09-22-2009, 03:37 PM
Cue wilbur...

megimoo
09-22-2009, 03:42 PM
Cue wilbur...
Wilbur is a keynote speaker at the UK Gay/Lesbian/Atheist convention this week !

PoliCon
09-22-2009, 07:23 PM
BLASPHEMER!! The Goracle will strick him down for sure!!!!11!!1!!1!!!!!!

Rockntractor
09-22-2009, 07:45 PM
Cue wilbur...

blah blah blah blah blah


Hows my new favorite ankle biter?
This is the most intelligent thing I've ever heard from Wilbur!

Bongo55
09-22-2009, 09:48 PM
Sounds like someone didn't get their endowment payment.

Rockntractor
09-23-2009, 01:02 AM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/Hypocrite.jpg?t=1253681963

wilbur
09-23-2009, 11:15 AM
Well I don't want to let anyone down so...

Thanks to Ginger for reposting yet another example of a half-told "science" story that - surprise, surprise - invented controversy where there is none.

If one thinks what Latif said is a paradigm shift, or about face from scientists... well... you've proved that you havent honestly investigated the theory at all. Its always funny how everyone claims to have "researched" the theory and come to an independent conclusion... but don't even comprehend the most basic of facts about the theory.



Latif begins the section of his presentation misrepresented by Pearce by confirming that the media incorrectly believes that global warming is monotonic- something that we know the warming is decidedly not; something not claimed by “climate science” or “climate scientists”. Significant natural variability is superimposed on the long term man-made warming trend. Although the press might expect for us to set a new temperature record every year, the existence of natural variability means that we could in theory wait a long time (~17 years) before setting a new temperature record. Latif imagines ‘what if’:



It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two- you know- when the temperature cools- alright- relative to the present level- alright?

And then- you know- I know what’s going to happen -you know? I will get- you know- millions of phone calls- you know:

“Eh, what’s going on? So, is global warming disappearing?” You know? “Have you lied on [sic] us?”

So- you kn0w- and therefore this is the reason why we need to address this decadal prediction issue.

This was not an explicit prediction by Latif- it was a hypothetical scenario that is a real, if not necessarily likely, possibility. Latif is saying that because people don’t understand that global warming isn’t supposed to be monotonic, and that there could be periods where temperatures pause or even dip below the present, the media and/or public will incorrectly believe that global warming has stopped/was wrong/etc. even though such “pauses” in warming are decidedly not contrary to our understanding of the climate system and how we anticipate it will respond to emissions driven warming.

Of course this is like cat nip to the denialists and their fellow travelers like Roger Pielke Jr. It feeds into the caricature, enabled by sloppy journalism, that nearly everything can happen because of global warming [often phrased, "Global warming, is there anything it can't do?" Sometimes with 'global warming' stricken out and replaced with 'climate change'].

Latif goes on to describe a number of phenomena that have an overall trend but are dominated on the interannual and even decadal scales by natural variability: Sahel rainfall, Atlantic tropical cyclones, regional sea levels. Again, none of this is new, none of it was presented as new. This represents no paradigm shift within climate science.

Rest at link...


http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/of-moles-and-whacking-mojib-latif-predicted-two-decades-of-cooling/

Rockntractor
09-23-2009, 11:18 AM
Blah blah blah blah! Good morning Wilbur.:D

pssvr
09-23-2009, 11:38 AM
If one thinks what Latif said is a paradigm shift, or about face from scientists

Who cares if it was a paradigm shift or not? The point remains the same: Global warming enthusiasts claim extreme certainty in their models, models which are constantly under revision and which are highly sensitive to initial conditions (see weather and chaos theory).

It is equivalent to the weatherman coming on Monday morning and informing everyone that they absolutely must buy tons of bread because there will be a blizzard that will last for weeks starting Tuesday. Then on Tuesday he comes on and says he made a minor revision to his model, and his over-arching theory remains the same, but actually there will be a tornado on Wednesday.

A high-school student working on a simple science project is taught he must support his mathematical model with data. The scientific method: You ask a question; you propose an answer; you develop an experiment to determine whether your proposal is consistent with reality. Global warming enthusiasts are missing that last step, and they know they are.

wilbur
09-23-2009, 05:15 PM
Who cares if it was a paradigm shift or not? The point remains the same

I believe the point is the shoddy, outright dishonest journalism on display - and its typical - even more troubling still, is just how much opinion on this issue is shaped by articles like this. Unfortunately for most, reading a few dozen, dishonest hack-jobs like this one, is what passes for their "research" on the issue.. and it shows.

We can step through just about every article posted in this section of the board and find the majority to be as flawed or more flawed than this one - and this is the stuff that reinforces the dogmatic position that the denialists scream about.



: Global warming enthusiasts claim extreme certainty in their models, models which are constantly under revision and which are highly sensitive to initial conditions (see weather and chaos theory).


No they dont claim certainty with their models. Sounds like your a victim too.



It is equivalent to the weatherman coming on Monday morning and informing everyone that they absolutely must buy tons of bread because there will be a blizzard that will last for weeks starting Tuesday. Then on Tuesday he comes on and says he made a minor revision to his model, and his over-arching theory remains the same, but actually there will be a tornado on Wednesday.


Nope, not really. This is just another version of the "we can't predict the weather very well, therefore we can't predict long term climate trends". Besides the point, many weather phenomena ARE predictable - some more than others.



A high-school student working on a simple science project is taught he must support his mathematical model with data. The scientific method: You ask a question; you propose an answer; you develop an experiment to determine whether your proposal is consistent with reality. Global warming enthusiasts are missing that last step, and they know they are.

That is the party line, but its just aint true.

SarasotaRepub
09-23-2009, 09:04 PM
No they dont claim certainty with their models. Sounds like your a victim too.



Yes, a lot do Wilbur, I've read it time after time. And then you have "experts"
like Al Gore who have zero scientific cred making statements like the debate
is over...it's what we say or you're a denialist.

Al is a used car salesman. Why do you think he won't debate anyone Wilbur?

patriot45
09-23-2009, 09:08 PM
All we gotta do is argue about this for about ten years or so and then we can find another false scare!
Just lets not go bankcrupt on phony theories! 2020, global colding!!

wilbur
09-23-2009, 09:56 PM
Yes, a lot do Wilbur, I've read it time after time. And then you have "experts"
like Al Gore who have zero scientific cred making statements like the debate
is over...it's what we say or you're a denialist.

Al is a used car salesman. Why do you think he won't debate anyone Wilbur?

Well, I wouldn't advocate listening to Al Gore on AGW anymore than I would recommend listening to Rush or even to the author of the article in the OP on AGW.... Same for Michael Moore on health care, or Ben Stein on evolution, etc etc.

Listen much closer to what the scientists say, and you'll see much less chaos, hyperbole, and misinformation.

PoliCon
09-23-2009, 09:57 PM
*yawn* The whole issue makes me wanna burn tires.

Rockntractor
09-23-2009, 09:58 PM
When the house voted on it they refused to hear opposing viewpoints by scientists.

PoliCon
09-23-2009, 10:00 PM
When the house voted on it they refused to hear opposing viewpoints by scientists.

BECAUSE IT'S SETTLED!1!!1!1!1!!!!! The debate is OVER! SO SAYTH THE GORACLE!!

FlaGator
09-23-2009, 10:46 PM
When the house voted on it they refused to hear opposing viewpoints by scientists.

Most, if not all, of their climate predictions have been dead wrong and they still try to spin things with the "not yet but it will" response or the every amusing "you just don't understand this issue" With whole careers built on the branches of the global warming tree many of these "scientists" have way to much invested to admit they are wrong.

wilbur
09-23-2009, 11:09 PM
Most, if not all, of their climate predictions have been dead wrong and they still try to spin things with the "not yet but it will" response or the every amusing "you just don't understand this issue" With whole careers built on the branches of the global warming tree many of these "scientists" have way to much invested to admit they are wrong.

Just where did this impression that the scientific predictions of AGW have failed? What were these predictions, and where did you find out about them? Articles like this one?

My guess is you catch bits here and there from Al Gore (or others like him, possibly even more extreme), dismiss them as loonie, then read oodles and oodles of articles like this or consume tons of your typical right anti-AGW media that serves to confirm and reinforce your opinion.

Then you walk away thinking how crazy those arrogant scientists are, and how misguided the rest of the people out there must be for falling for the "obvious conspiracy". All the while, one would have been lucky to encounter just one single accurate fact about AGW theory in the entire process.

pssvr
09-24-2009, 10:38 AM
I believe the point is the shoddy, outright dishonest journalism on display - and its typical - even more troubling still, is just how much opinion on this issue is shaped by articles like this. Unfortunately for most, reading a few dozen, dishonest hack-jobs like this one, is what passes for their "research" on the issue.. and it shows.

I'm not most. Don't argue against me by citing the stupidity of the average person.


No they dont claim certainty with their models. Sounds like your a victim too.

Then it sounds to me like you just forfeited the argument. There isn't certainty in the models; you and the scientists admit that. Therefore there is clearly no reason to spend trillions of dollars and destroy critical industries in order to prevent a disaster that is predicted by some uncertain models and not predicted by other equally uncertain models.


Nope, not really. This is just another version of the "we can't predict the weather very well, therefore we can't predict long term climate trends". Besides the point, many weather phenomena ARE predictable - some more than others.

The weather man was an example only; I'm well aware that weather and climate aren't strictly related. I can pick another example, if that makes it easier on you. The economy is a good one. Economists make predictions about tomorrow and explain why what they said yesterday didn't happen today.


That is the party line, but its just aint true.

What is it? The scientific method? Or the fact that the Liberals are missing the last piece of it? Because either way, you're missing out on basically all of the world's climatological knowledge.

PoliCon
09-24-2009, 10:42 AM
Honestly - have the Global warming alarmists made a single correct climate model prediction todate?