Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 50
  1. #1 Media lies about the IPCC 
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Just some food for thought - though I'm sure most of you will choose to starve.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...acts-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?
    Last edited by wilbur; 02-15-2010 at 11:42 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Resident Grandpa marv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Shell Knob, MO
    Posts
    3,059
    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.

    http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/images/allen-west.jpg

    Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

    THIS POST WILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by marv View Post
    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...
    Last edited by wilbur; 02-15-2010 at 12:42 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,322
    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/200...limateorg.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/C...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/in...4094138AA4BQFA
    I mean if you're going to make appeals to authority - I might as well poison the well.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    28,040
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Just some food for thought - though I'm sure most of you will choose to starve.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...acts-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.
    Cast your burden on the Lord,
    and he will sustain you;
    he will never permit
    the righteous to be moved.
    Psalm 55:22
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Resident Grandpa marv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Shell Knob, MO
    Posts
    3,059
    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.

    http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/images/allen-west.jpg

    Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

    THIS POST WILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Popular Technology
    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.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ft. Campbell
    Posts
    10,220
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    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.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by djones520 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by The Night Owl; 02-15-2010 at 01:56 PM.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    718
    The underlying data has been fabricated. The science is not settled.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •