2013 IPCC Climate Change Report Leak - Warming predictions changed from previous

[PapaG]

More information on the politicization of climate "science". I do find it hilarious when Alarmists on this board still try to use "consensus" as some meaningful scientific standard.

World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years

Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.

A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.

Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.

The report is the result of six years’ work by UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is seen as the world authority on the extent of climate change and what is causing it – on which governments including Britain’s base their green policies.

But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.
Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.

Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.
Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.

The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.

The last IPCC ‘assessment report’ was published in 2007 and has been the subject of huge controversy after it had to correct the embarrassing claim that the Himalayas would melt by 2035.

It was then engulfed in the ‘Climategate’ scandal surrounding leaked emails allegedly showing scientists involved in it trying to manipulate their data to make it look more convincing – although several inquiries found no wrongdoing.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...temperature-risen-15-years.html#ixzz2fPIAeJKV
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[PapaG]

Are we certain that carbon levels in the atmosphere are responsible for the changes in temperature?

The empirical data says no. But the billions being spent on political cronies and their industries say yes.

Solyndra. Remember that boondoggle. The investors made out like bandits. The workers lost their jobs.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Yours has data that was altered to get alarming results. Believe in lies much?

Yes I believe in lies all the time. In fact, I go out of my way to do so. Believe in lies 4lyfe.

Link?

Are we certain that carbon levels in the atmosphere are responsible for the changes in temperature?

Honestly, I don't know. I'm not a climate scientist. I'm just saying that artificially increasing the carbon in the atmospheric carbon cycle may throw something out of whack.

 

[jlprk]

More scientists than ever disagree with you conservatives. Your trick is to find local exceptions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/16/us-climate-report-idUSBRE97F0KM20130816

 

[jlprk]

I already disproved the last study. So your side created more.

http://sportstwo.com/threads/243755...f-Global-Warming-Crisis?p=3085047#post3085047

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes I believe in lies all the time. In fact, I go out of my way to do so. Believe in lies 4lyfe.

Link?

I gave you 3

Watch this, it's only 5 minutes:

[video=youtube;8BQpciw8suk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk&feature=related&app=desktop[/video]

 

[jlprk]

The Berkeley professor believes he found a graphing trick. But it is so trivial compared to the weight of hundreds of other experiments, that the video opens with, "Keep in mind that Prof. Muller does believe that CO2 causes significant global warming."

So he doesn't help your cause.

 

[Denny Crane]

The Berkeley professor believes he found a graphing trick. But it is so trivial compared to the weight of hundreds of other experiments, that the video opens with, "Keep in mind that Prof. Muller does believe that CO2 causes significant global warming."

So he doesn't help your cause.

So he exposes the lie, and?

The key line in the video is "this is science, we don't do that."

Or maybe the part about "there's several people whose work I won't read anymore because of these practices."

 

[bluefrog]

I gave you 3

Watch this, it's only 5 minutes:

[video=youtube;8BQpciw8suk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk&feature=related&app=desktop[/video]

And you accuse me of posting sources with spin?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I don't have time to fact-check all everything in this clip but here's one quicky:

Professor Richard Muller:

"A quote came out of the emails, these leaked emails, that said "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". That's the words, "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline".

What was ACTUALLY written in the email:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

Denny, do you vet your sources at all? Do you just do a quick google search and post the first link you find to support your argument?

 

[Denny Crane]

And you accuse me of posting sources with spin?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I don't have time to fact-check all everything in this clip but here's one quicky:

Professor Richard Muller:

"A quote came out of the emails, these leaked emails, that said "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". That's the words, "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline".

What was ACTUALLY written in the email:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

Denny, do you vet your sources at all? Do you just do a quick google search and post the first link you find to support your argument?

Hide the decline.

Awesome.

I'm sure there's carefully thought of spin on that one.

 

[bluefrog]

My point is consensus is meaningless. It's a political argument.

Consensus that the earth is flat doesn't make it so.

WRONG

Consensus is not part of the scientific method but scientists use it all the time. If a great number of individual scientists arrive at a similar opinion this is generally a sufficient reason to have confidence in those views.

Consensus amongst scientists is important to the scientific community because independent replication of results is important to the scientific method. Nothing should be taken at face value, or as more than a possibility, until there is a weight of research from diverse scientific groups to support it.

 

[bluefrog]

Hide the decline.

Awesome.

I'm sure there's carefully thought of spin on that one.

Well, as long as there's a grain of truth, right?

 

[Denny Crane]

WRONG

Consensus is not part of the scientific method but scientists use it all the time. If a great number of individual scientists arrive at a similar opinion this is generally a sufficient reason to have confidence in those views.

Consensus amongst scientists is important to the scientific community because independent replication of results is important to the scientific method. Nothing should be taken at face value, or as more than a possibility, until there is a weight of research from diverse scientific groups to support it.

WRONG

It's a poll. The 97% figure claimed is the result of a survey, not some measure of scientific method.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, as long as there's a grain of truth, right?

Attack the messenger when the truth isn't on your side.

He says he believes CO2 causes warming, but that the hockey stick is bullshit. Is he not a scientist?

Does he not fit in with your consensus claim?

 

[bluefrog]

WRONG

It's a poll. The 97% figure claimed is the result of a survey, not some measure of scientific method.

First you tried to say most scientists thought the world was cooling the 70s.

Next you argue that consensus is meaningless.

Now we're onto the claim that consensus around AGW is inaccurate. Fine, we'll keep moving the goal posts

If you don't like the techniques used for a scientific survey, how would you "measure the scientific method" of climate research literature.

 

[Denny Crane]

First you tried to say most scientists thought the world was cooling the 70s.

Next you argue that consensus is meaningless.

Now we're onto the claim that consensus around AGW is inaccurate. Fine, we'll keep moving the goal posts

If you don't like the techniques used for a scientific survey, how would you "measure the scientific method" of climate research literature.

Did scientists think the world was cooling in the 70s? Yes.

I spoofed the use of consensus in relation to science. It is a political term.

I'm not moving the goal posts.

I would measure dissent from lots of guys with PhDs and doing work in the field as a sign the science is not settled. The dissent is where the real action is - without it, the earth would be flat and the sun would revolve around the earth, space would be made of crystal spheres, etc.

EDIT: the 1970s ice age alarmism mirrors what we see today. People producing graphs to show what they want, pointing at severe weather incidents as proof they're right, etc.

 

[bluefrog]

Did scientists think the world was cooling in the 70s? Yes.

I spoofed the use of consensus in relation to science. It is a political term.

I'm not moving the goal posts.

So you spoofed the term? It seemed like you were trying to show the majority of scientists believed in a new ice age. Your argument wasn't clear at all.

I would measure dissent from lots of guys with PhDs and doing work in the field as a sign the science is not settled. The dissent is where the real action is - without it, the earth would be flat and the sun would revolve around the earth, space would be made of crystal spheres, etc.

EDIT: the 1970s ice age alarmism mirrors what we see today. People producing graphs to show what they want, pointing at severe weather incidents as proof they're right, etc.

Focusing on the dissenters in science also has faults? In the 70s that would have been the "ice agers" as I'll call them? In biology it would be the "intelligent design" proponents" Hell, there are even still flat earth proponents.

The problem with your suggestion is which dissenters are important? The one's with the most published research? The one's with the least published research? The one's with the most recent published papers? And your argument that surveys aren't a measure of the scientific method also applies here.

Not to say dissent isn't important but for every minority view that became a majority view there are a lot more examples of crackpot theories that are still crackpot theories today.

 

[Denny Crane]

So you spoofed the term? It seemed like you were trying to show the majority of scientists believed in a new ice age. Your argument wasn't clear at all.



Focusing on the dissenters in science also has faults? In the 70s that would have been the "ice agers" as I'll call them? In biology it would be the "intelligent design" proponents" Hell, there are even still flat earth proponents.

The problem with your suggestion is which dissenters are important? The one's with the most published research? The one's with the least published research? The one's with the most recent published papers? And your argument that surveys aren't a measure of the scientific method also applies here.

Not to say dissent isn't important but for every minority view that became a majority view there are a lot more examples of crackpot theories that are still crackpot theories today.

This whole thing is political in nature.

There are 2,000 scientists of which 97% wrote papers saying there's global warming.

10,000 scientists can come out against it, but are (pick one or more):

1) ridiculed
2) funded by some nefarious evil entity
3) denied publication through peer review
4) denied grant funding
5) credibility on the issue impeached
6) etc.

I think a statistician is fully capable of looking at the statistical methods used by scientists in their published papers and find fault that brings the processes into question.

http://www.petitionproject.org

Pick one or more of the above to explain it away.

EDIT: to be clear, 30,000+ is not one genius with the true answer who is dissenting. It's an actual lot of people with scientific training enough to judge the science and debate.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Good enough.

Wrong answer. Even today, I question the methodology behind calculating the "average temperature." No way in hell that calculations would be even remotely credible before Al Gore invented the internet, much less in the early 1900s.

 

[bluefrog]

This whole thing is political in nature.

There are 2,000 scientists of which 97% wrote papers saying there's global warming.

10,000 scientists can come out against it, but are (pick one or more):

1) ridiculed
2) funded by some nefarious evil entity
3) denied publication through peer review
4) denied grant funding
5) credibility on the issue impeached
6) etc.

I think a statistician is fully capable of looking at the statistical methods used by scientists in their published papers and find fault that brings the processes into question.

http://www.petitionproject.org

Pick one or more of the above to explain it away.

EDIT: to be clear, 30,000+ is not one genius with the true answer who is dissenting. It's an actual lot of people with scientific training enough to judge the science and debate.

Again, I'm not clear on what you're arguing.

Is the periodic table political? Did a band of liberal thugs force evolution into biology? Is the theory of relativity just a product of effective coercion? Have we all been duped into believing plate tectonics?

 

[Masbee]

All this business about “confidence” sounds like a sophomoric game because it is. It’s the IPCC’s consensus-seeking process at work. Consensus is a group decision-making process that seeks the consent of all participants, and it is not part of the scientific method. It gained popularity in the women’s liberation and anti-nuclear movements of the 1970s.

The only advantage of consensus-seeking for the IPCC is the political clout of being able to say, “The scientific consensus is…”, thereby totally undercutting the views of non-IPCC scientists.

Its disadvantage to science is that nobody knows by an up-and-down vote who disagrees with major pieces of the science and why, instead devising a scale of “confidence” for each set of results: “weakly confident,” “moderately confident,” and “extremely confident” – like marking your kids’ heights on the kitchen wall with “short,” “taller” and “way tall.”

Curry recommended that the consensus-seeking IPCC process be abandoned for a more traditional review, saying, "I think that arguments for and against would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.”

One of the report’s authors, professor Myles Allen, director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, said, “The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works.” He recommended this IPCC report be the last.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ipcc-...source=weeklystandard.com&utm_medium=referral

Please stop with this "consensus" idea.

It is horseshit perpetrated by politicians and power brokers and the scientists that "work" for them or have been politicized - those who would steal our liberty. Understand junk science when you see it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Again, I'm not clear on what you're arguing.

Is the periodic table political? Did a band of liberal thugs force evolution into biology? Is the theory of relativity just a product of effective coercion? Have we all been duped into believing plate tectonics?

Find me a list of 30,000 scientists who say the periodic table is wrong.

Let me know when you find it.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We're spitting it into the atmosphere.

I don't have the time. So tell me, is this a problem? If not now, will it be in the future?

 

[Denny Crane]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We're spitting it into the atmosphere.

I don't have the time. So tell me, is this a problem? If not now, will it be in the future?

It's 4/100th of 1% of all gases in the atmosphere.

Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. 4% of the atmosphere.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Wrong answer. Even today, I question the methodology behind calculating the "average temperature." No way in hell that calculations would be even remotely credible before Al Gore invented the internet, much less in the early 1900s.

You should probably stop before you dig any deeper. There are so many continuous monitoring stations around the globe and any number of remote sensing platforms on satellites that it's beyond trivial to acquire, collate and average this kind of data and it's done every day.

 

[PapaG]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We're spitting it into the atmosphere.

I don't have the time. So tell me, is this a problem? If not now, will it be in the future?

CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere, and guess what, it is actually productive in that plants use it as their food source.

All is this is a scam to control the means of powering the planet, and the way the Alarmists defend their religion against actual empirical date isn't much different than a believer in a God keeping their faith, even with a lack of evidence.

 

[PapaG]

You should probably stop before you dig any deeper. There are so many continuous monitoring stations around the globe and any number of remote sensing platforms on satellites that it's beyond trivial to acquire, collate and average this kind of data and it's done every day.

Yes, the monitoring stations. Like these, which don't seem to have any bias to them...

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=660

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Hey, let's put a weather station in a parking lot 10' from an AC exhaust fan, and surround it with asphalt!

 

[Masbee]

You should probably stop before you dig any deeper. There are so many continuous monitoring stations around the globe and any number of remote sensing platforms on satellites that it's beyond trivial to acquire, collate and average this kind of data and it's done every day.

Current average temperatures are accurate, I am sure.

What about average temperature estimates for 20 years ago? 40 years ago? 100 years ago? How accurate are those and how can you possibly integrate and correlate with the extremely accurate satellite based tech we have today?

I think that is the issue being raised here.

 

[bluefrog]

Find me a list of 30,000 scientists who say the periodic table is wrong.

Let me know when you find it.

A petition of unverified "scientists" is a very weak argument. Here's a list of thousands of scientists who don't believe in evolution

 

[Denny Crane]

A petition of unverified "scientists" is a very weak argument. Here's a list of thousands of scientists who don't believe in evolution

Unverified? Where'd you get that?

I agree that Evolution isn't settled science as well. However, I don't see any bette alternative explanation.