PDA

View Full Version : Media lies abou the IPCC



wilbur
02-15-2010, 10:29 AM
Just some food for thought - though I'm sure most of you will choose to starve.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/



....

Let’s start with a few basic facts about the IPCC. The IPCC is not, as many people seem to think, a large organization. In fact, it has only 10 full-time staff in its secretariat at the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva, plus a few staff in four technical support units that help the chairs of the three IPCC working groups and the national greenhouse gas inventories group. The actual work of the IPCC is done by unpaid volunteers – thousands of scientists at universities and research institutes around the world who contribute as authors or reviewers to the completion of the IPCC reports. A large fraction of the relevant scientific community is thus involved in the effort.



I bet most here had no idea of this - I certainly didnt. I always assumed that the IPCC was a huge bureaucratic behemoth.




To those familiar with the science and the IPCC’s work, the current media discussion is in large part simply absurd and surreal. Journalists who have never even peeked into the IPCC report are now outraged that one wrong number appears on page 493 of Volume 2. We’ve met TV teams coming to film a report on the IPCC reports’ errors, who were astonished when they held one of the heavy volumes in hand, having never even seen it. They told us frankly that they had no way to make their own judgment; they could only report what they were being told about it. And there are well-organized lobby forces with proper PR skills that make sure these journalists are being told the “right” story. That explains why some media stories about what is supposedly said in the IPCC reports can easily be falsified simply by opening the report and reading. Unfortunately, as a broad-based volunteer effort with only minimal organizational structure the IPCC is not in a good position to rapidly counter misinformation.

One near-universal meme of the media stories on the Himalaya mistake was that this was “one of the most central predictions of the IPCC” – apparently in order to make the error look more serious than it was. However, this prediction does not appear in any of the IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers, nor in the Synthesis Report (which at least partly explains why it went unnoticed for years). None of the media reports that we saw properly explained that Volume 1 (which is where projections of physical climate changes belong) has an extensive and entirely valid discussion of glacier loss.

What apparently has happened is that interested quarters, after the Himalyan glacier story broke, have sifted through the IPCC volumes with a fine-toothed comb, hoping to find more embarrassing errors. They have actually found precious little, but the little they did find was promptly hyped into Seagate, Africagate, Amazongate and so on. This has some similarity to the CRU email theft, where precious little was discovered from among thousands of emails, but a few sentences were plucked out of context, deliberately misinterpreted (like “hide the decline”) and then hyped into “Climategate”.

As lucidly analysed by Tim Holmes, there appear to be a few active leaders of this misinformation parade in the media. Jonathan Leake is carrying the ball on this, but his stories contain multiple errors, misrepresentations and misquotes. There also is a sizeable contingent of me-too journalism that is simply repeating the stories but not taking the time to form a well-founded view on the topics. Typically they report on various “allegations”, such as these against the IPCC, similar to reporting that the CRU email hack lead to “allegations of data manipulation”. Technically it isn’t even wrong that there were such allegations. But isn’t it the responsibility of the media to actually investigate whether allegations have any merit before they decide to repeat them?

Leake incidentally attacked the scientific work of one of us (Stefan) in a Sunday Times article in January. This article was rather biased and contained some factual errors that Stefan asked to be corrected. He has received no response, nor was any correction made. Two British scientists quoted by Leake – Jonathan Gregory and Simon Holgate – independently wrote to Stefan after the article appeared to say they had been badly misquoted. One of them wrote that the experience with Leake had made him “reluctant to speak to any journalist about any subject at all”.


Note that these ARE the stories that folk here post. So it looks like, pound for pound, a few paragraphs from Johnathon Leake typically contains orders of magnitude more grave errors that an entire 500 page tome from the IPCC. Hows that for credibility?

marv
02-15-2010, 11:30 AM
Willie, the game is over, and your side lost. Time to give it up.

The temperature is what I read on the thermometer outside the kitchen window. Weather is whether it'll rain, snow, or maybe the sun might shine today. Climate is what makes the upper Midwest in the US great for growing wheat, corn and soybeans.

But the concept of a "global" climate is an absurdity!

Go back to your pot and dream your dreams.

wilbur
02-15-2010, 11:37 AM
Willie, the game is over, and your side lost. Time to give it up.

Repeating it over and over doesn't make it anymore true - its pretty funny - thats about all you folk can muster... is the constant repetition of phrases like "The game is over!", "Its a smoking gun", etc. Few have noticed that few to none of you actually attempt to understand the issue or to even feel compelled to construct a lucid case. Just copy and paste some news byte, don't even need to read it past the headline - post and repeat your catch phrases.

As if enough of you shouting the same things over and over removes the requirement to actually consider the issue.

And its not a game.



The temperature is what I read on the thermometer outside the kitchen window. Weather is whether it'll rain, snow, or maybe the sun might shine today. Climate is what makes the upper Midwest in the US great for growing wheat, corn and soybeans.

But the concept of a "global" climate is an absurdity!

Go back to your pot and dream your dreams.

Wow - you give a whole new meaning to the term "climate denier". You don't just deny global warming - you deny the existence of the climate all together! Just when you thought the bar couldnt get any lower...

PoliCon
02-15-2010, 11:52 AM
www.realclimate.org


RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum.


RealClimate.org is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an "objective" source on climate change. It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed "climatologists". Yet skeptical scientists with equivalent credentials are not (probably because they have not proclaimed it). Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide. Standard operating procedure is to post "rebuttals" to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn't matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys "ammunition" to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley's job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist "science" pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose. The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don't want you to know that.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html


The global warming promoting website RealClimate.org, is under fire yet again from a prominent scientist for presenting incorrect climate information. Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. publicly rebuked the website in a June 30, 2009 article for "erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving." Pielke, the former Colorado State Climatologist and currently a senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, countered Real Climate's claim that warming was "progressing faster than expected" with the latest data on sea level rise, ocean heat content and Arctic ice.

In his article titled "Real Climate's Misinformation", Pielke also chastised readers of Real Climate for blindly accepting the incorrect climate claims promoted on the site.

"Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position," Pielke Sr. wrote.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1742/Climatologist-slams-RealClimateorg-for-erroneously-communicating-the-reality-of-the-how-climate-system-is-actually-behaving--Rebuts-Myths-On-Sea-Level-Oceans-and-Arctic-Ice




Is realclimate.org biased?
Realclimate.org is funded by Environmental Media Services, founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign.

EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications.

Fenton Communications client list includes organizations associated with a diverse array of social issues, but they are most known for their work with liberal causes such as MoveOn.org and Greenpeace.

Since that is such a 'leftward' bias already, and since the 'leftward' bias of AGW and GW is pretty much a known fact.

Doesn't that cast some doubt on realclimate.org? It's an award winning blog. A blog.

Aren't blogs merely people's opinions and not reliable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClimate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenton_Comm…

Doesn't that make you think realclimate.org has an agenda?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080214094138AA4BQFAI mean if you're going to make appeals to authority - I might as well poison the well.

FlaGator
02-15-2010, 12:07 PM
Just some food for thought - though I'm sure most of you will choose to starve.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/



I bet most here had no idea of this - I certainly didnt. I always assumed that the IPCC was a huge bureaucratic behemoth.



Note that these ARE the stories that folk here post. So it looks like, pound for pound, a few paragraphs from Johnathon Leake typically contains orders of magnitude more grave errors that an entire 500 page tome from the IPCC. Hows that for credibility?

You sure are making a lot of assumptions about people and you know what they say about assuming. Perhaps you should take that to heart.

marv
02-15-2010, 12:11 PM
Willie, an unusually cold and snowy Winter, or an unusually hot and dry Summer is not a "sign" of global cooling or warming. Even during the Medieval warming period from about 800 to 1300 AD, the Northern hemisphere was warmer than normal while the Southern hemisphere was COOLER than normal. And you can't deny historical fact!

Face it Willie, you bought stock in a failing company.

The Night Owl
02-15-2010, 12:16 PM
RealClimate.org is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an "objective" source on climate change. It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed "climatologists".

Climatology is a subdiscipline of geoscience.

djones520
02-15-2010, 12:18 PM
Climatology is a subdiscipline of Geoscience.

Yes, but there are actual degree programs for Climatology. Everyone of those schools listed has a function in Climatology, and i'm sure everyone of them has something to add to the equation, but being a mathmetician, or an oceanographer does not make one a Climatologist.

The Night Owl
02-15-2010, 12:33 PM
Yes, but there are actual degree programs for Climatology. Everyone of those schools listed has a function in Climatology, and i'm sure everyone of them has something to add to the equation, but being a mathmetician, or an oceanographer does not make one a Climatologist.

Actually, most schools which let students specialize in climatology don't offer degrees with the word Climate or Climatology in the title. Usually, a student who specializes in climatology receives a degree in Earth Sciences... or Atmospheric Science... or Geoscience... or Physics... or something like that when he or she graduates.

It's patently absurd to suggest that the people who write for Real Climate are not authorities on climate.

Nubs
02-15-2010, 12:54 PM
The underlying data has been fabricated. The science is not settled.

wilbur
02-15-2010, 12:57 PM
The underlying data has been fabricated.

News to me. What specifically has been fabricated?

The Night Owl
02-15-2010, 12:59 PM
The science is not settled.

So, if you feel that the science isn't settled then would it be fair to say that you're of the mind that Earth's climate may be warming and that human activities may be the cause of the warming?

Constitutionally Speaking
02-15-2010, 01:56 PM
Just some food for thought - though I'm sure most of you will choose to starve.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/


The actual work of the IPCC is done by unpaid volunteers

I bet most here had no idea of this - I certainly didnt. I always assumed that the IPCC was a huge bureaucratic behemoth.


In other words, they are rank amateurs!!!!


Thank you Sir Wilbur for confirming my contention!!!

Constitutionally Speaking
02-15-2010, 01:58 PM
So, if you feel that the science isn't settled then would it be fair to say that you're of the mind that Earth's climate may be warming and that human activities may be the cause of the warming?


I would point out that whatever warming we HAD (it is now cooling) was nothing unusual in any way, shape or form; and anyone who points to a graph that only goes back in history to the mid 1800's is lying by omission.

It is a HORRIBLY inadequate sample time frame that was cherry-picked to produce just the sort of mass hysteria we have witnessed on this subject over the past few years.

PoliCon
02-15-2010, 01:58 PM
I would point out that whatever warming we HAD (it is now cooling) was nothing unusual in any way, shape or form.

you mean . . . . :eek: . . . . it's . . . . . natural!?!?!?!?!?111/??/?!/1/

FlaGator
02-15-2010, 01:59 PM
News to me. What specifically has been fabricated?

I would suspect it was the same data that happens to have been deleted or misplaced buy the "disorganized" climatologist.

wilbur
02-15-2010, 02:02 PM
In other words, they are rank amateurs!!!!


Thank you Sir Wilbur for confirming my contention!!!

Let me post the whole thing for you, since it doesnt look like you read the whole thing:

"The actual work of the IPCC is done by unpaid volunteers – thousands of scientists at universities and research institutes around the world who contribute as authors or reviewers to the completion of the IPCC reports. A large fraction of the relevant scientific community is thus involved in the effort."

The Night Owl
02-15-2010, 02:10 PM
I would point out that whatever warming we HAD (it is now cooling) was nothing unusual in any way, shape or form; and anyone who points to a graph that only goes back in history to the mid 1800's is lying by omission.

It is a HORRIBLY inadequate sample time frame that was cherry-picked to produce just the sort of mass hysteria we have witnessed on this subject over the past few years.

So, to your way of thinking, the science is settled. That's my point.

wilbur
02-15-2010, 02:32 PM
I would point out that whatever warming we HAD (it is now cooling) was nothing unusual in any way, shape or form; and anyone who points to a graph that only goes back in history to the mid 1800's is lying by omission.



Um.. it hasnt been cooling. Its "cooling" in the same way that congress "cuts the budget", where an increase is slightly reduced, but its still an increase nonetheless. But the decrease in the increase has not deviated from the expected variation of natural climate variability. In other words, it hasn't been statistically significant. And its still warming - just slower.

FlaGator
02-15-2010, 02:33 PM
So, if you feel that the science isn't settled then would it be fair to say that you're of the mind that Earth's climate may be warming and that human activities may be the cause of the warming?

The earth has been warming and cooling long before man showed up and it's been warming and cooling long before the industrial era. That is settled science. Is man playing a role in any current temperature changes? That is up in the air. The science is not settled. Your questions are too simplistic.

The Night Owl
02-15-2010, 03:47 PM
The earth has been warming and cooling long before man showed up and it's been warming and cooling long before the industrial era. That is settled science.

That the Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling throughout its history has not been challenged.


Is man playing a role in any current temperature changes? That is up in the air. The science is not settled. Your questions are too simplistic.

CS seems to think that the science is settled. According to him, global warming in the 20th Century was natural and that's all there is to it.

patriot45
02-15-2010, 03:54 PM
I'll say what I said 5 or so years ago, lets not throw trillions at it. Lets just wait like we did in the 70's when globall cooling was the craze and wait for the next chicken little scheme the left will come up with to steal wealth!
Its cold in Florida!

Constitutionally Speaking
02-15-2010, 06:02 PM
Let me post the whole thing for you, since it doesnt look like you read the whole thing:

"The actual work of the IPCC is done by unpaid volunteers – thousands of scientists at universities and research institutes around the world who contribute as authors or reviewers to the completion of the IPCC reports. A large fraction of the relevant scientific community is thus involved in the effort."


Oh come on!!!! I was jabbing you!

Constitutionally Speaking
02-15-2010, 06:03 PM
Um.. it hasnt been cooling. Its "cooling" in the same way that congress "cuts the budget", where an increase is slightly reduced, but its still an increase nonetheless. But the decrease in the increase has not deviated from the expected variation of natural climate variability. In other words, it hasn't been statistically significant. And its still warming - just slower.


Not at all Wilbur. Actual temps have shown a slight decrease - not really a significant decrease, but a decrease just the same.

Constitutionally Speaking
02-15-2010, 06:09 PM
That the Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling throughout its history has not been challenged.



CS seems to think that the science is settled. According to him, global warming in the 20th Century was natural and that's all there is to it.


There is nothing settled, but what we have witnessed is not unprecedented. It is my OPINION that it is all natural, but I am not willing to say that definitively.

What I CAN say definitively is that a lot of the so-called evidence for anthropogenic global warming is dubious at best.

The Night Owl
02-15-2010, 06:36 PM
Not at all Wilbur. Actual temps have shown a slight decrease - not really a significant decrease, but a decrease just the same.

What time span are you talking about?

djones520
02-15-2010, 06:53 PM
What time span are you talking about?

Here's a nice chart.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

Constitutionally Speaking
02-15-2010, 06:56 PM
What time span are you talking about?


10 years. A decrease of roughly .05 degrees.

The Night Owl
02-15-2010, 07:04 PM
10 years. A decrease of roughly .05 degrees.

HADCRUT3 shows slight warming in the most recent 10 year span:

http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/temperature-records/HADCRUT3_1999-2009.png/image_preview (http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/temperature-records/HADCRUT3_1999-2009.png/view)

Which 10 year span are you referring to?

PoliCon
02-15-2010, 07:09 PM
HADCRUT3 shows slight warming in the most recent 10 year span:

http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/temperature-records/HADCRUT3_1999-2009.png/image_preview (http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/temperature-records/HADCRUT3_1999-2009.png/view)

Which 10 year span are you referring to?

I love how they arbitrarily assume an upward trend. :rolleyes:

The Night Owl
02-15-2010, 07:11 PM
Here's a nice chart.



Birth of Christ? Is this a joke?

Feel free to provide academic credentials for either Cliff Harris or Randy Mann. I couldn't find anything.

The Night Owl
02-15-2010, 07:13 PM
I love how they arbitrarily assume an upward trend. :rolleyes:

Wow! Really?

djones520
02-15-2010, 07:16 PM
Amazing TNO... when you look at the 1998-2008 it shows cooling...

http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/temperature-records/HADCRUT3_1998-2008.png/image

The Night Owl
02-15-2010, 07:21 PM
Amazing TNO... when you look at the 1998-2008 it shows cooling...

Yes! Amazing! When we look at 1998 to 2008 we see cooling. When we look at 1999 to 2009 we see warming. So, maybe, just maybe, deniers should stop pointing to short temperature trends (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=25225) as proof against global warming?

djones520
02-15-2010, 07:25 PM
So when you point out 20 years of warming, it's AGW, but 10 years of cooling means nothing because it's a short term trend?

Rockntractor
02-15-2010, 07:26 PM
Yes! Amazing! When we look at 1998 to 2008 we see cooling. When we look at 1999 to 2009 we see warming. So, maybe, just maybe, deniers should stop pointing to short temperature trends (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=25225) as proof against global warming?

It might be believable had they used all the temperature recording stations.

The Night Owl
02-15-2010, 07:27 PM
So when you point out 20 years of warming, it's AGW, but 10 years of cooling means nothing because it's a short term trend?

I've never pointed to a 20 year temperature trend as evidence of AGW. In fact, I've repeatedly pointed out that climate scientists usually use no less than a 30 year span to establish a climate baseline.

djones520
02-15-2010, 07:27 PM
From that same site you introduced me to, thank you by the way.

http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/temperature-records/2000yrs_models_ipcc_6_1_large.jpg/image

11 reconstructions show much more mild shifts then the 1 HadCRUT that the IPCC decided to use. What makes that one so much more accurate?

djones520
02-15-2010, 07:29 PM
I've never pointed to a 20 year temperature trend as evidence of AGW. In fact, I've repeatedly pointed out that climate scientists usually use no less than a 30 year span to establish a climate baseline.

http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/temperature-records/Fig.A3.lrg.gif/image

So that 20 year trend from the 80's to 2000 is whats largely pointed at. 40 years prior to that we have cooling. Where is that 30 year trend?

Constitutionally Speaking
02-15-2010, 07:35 PM
HADCRUT3 shows slight warming in the most recent 10 year span:

http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/temperature-records/HADCRUT3_1999-2009.png/image_preview (http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/temperature-records/HADCRUT3_1999-2009.png/view)

Which 10 year span are you referring to?


The last 10 years - but that is not really statistically relevant either. But THIS is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE&feature=related

The Night Owl
02-15-2010, 07:39 PM
So that 20 year trend from the 80's to 2000 is whats largely pointed at.

Who is doing the pointing at 1980 to 2000? Not me.


40 years prior to that we have cooling. Where is that 30 year trend?

1940 to 1980 looks like a flat or slightly increasing temperature trend:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Constitutionally Speaking
02-15-2010, 07:42 PM
Who is doing the pointing at 1980 to 2000? Not me.



1940 to 1980 looks like a flat or slightly increasing temperature trend:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

But what does a 1935 to 1980 trend look like???

The problem is that the AGW crowd cherry picked the time frames to create the impression that we are in a dire circumstance that was brought on by man. The longer and more relevant trends show no such thing.

The Night Owl
02-15-2010, 07:43 PM
The last 10 years - but that is not really statistically relevant either. But THIS is.

I know that the warming over the past 10 years is not statistically significant. I brought it up to refute your assertion that the temperature trend of the past 10 years shows cooling.

Constitutionally Speaking
02-15-2010, 07:53 PM
I know that the warming over the past 10 years is not statistically significant. I brought it up to refute your assertion that the temperature trend of the past 10 years shows cooling.

It does, but any change over periods of even several hundred - or even several thousand years is also irrelevant.

The video I posted provides a quick overview of the longer term picture.

Rockntractor
02-15-2010, 07:54 PM
I know that the warming over the past 10 years is not statistically significant. I brought it up to refute your assertion that the temperature trend of the past 10 years shows cooling.
Do you think it might just have something to do with sun spots?:confused:

Constitutionally Speaking
02-15-2010, 08:45 PM
I know that the warming over the past 10 years is not statistically significant. I brought it up to refute your assertion that the temperature trend of the past 10 years shows cooling.


My "cooling" comment was in response to another short term warming claim.

Sonnabend
02-16-2010, 05:18 AM
I know that the warming over the past FIFTEEN years is not statistically significant

Tell the truth.

Jones said FIFTEEN years. Not ten.

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 12:29 PM
Tell the truth.

Jones said FIFTEEN years. Not ten.

I was speaking in response to CS's statement in post #28.

Nubs
02-16-2010, 02:42 PM
I can just see Jones at his doctoral dissertation:

Dr. Jones, could you show me your raw data???

UMMM, no, I do not have it, my dog ate the data. I did draw the correct conclusion, trust me.

Sonnabend
02-16-2010, 05:31 PM
I was speaking in response to CS's statement in post #28.

And you distorted the facts.

FIFTEEN years, and he said the planet hasnt wamred hence there is no global warming.

Game over.