Triple OUCH! Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'

[Old Rocks]

LOL. This is your source?

Rumor Mill News Reading Room Archive
American Chemical Society says man-made "Global Warming" is poppycock

 

[Old Rocks]

Now here is what the American Chemical Society says concerning global warming. No change in their position. Seems that you have posted from another idiotic blog full of nonsense.

Global Climate Change Position Statement American Chemical Society

ACS Position

Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.
The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005). This statement reviews key global climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to currently anticipated consequences.

 

[westwall]

Now here is what the American Chemical Society says concerning global warming. No change in their position. Seems that you have posted from another idiotic blog full of nonsense.

Global Climate Change Position Statement American Chemical Society

ACS Position

Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.
The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005). This statement reviews key global climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to currently anticipated consequences.

That's what the membership is in revolt about faux environmentalist.

 

[taichiliberal]

And yet you stil cannot be adult enough or intellectually honest enough to admit when you're wrong. Dodge all you want, but you can't escape a matter of fact and history....instead you present yourself as a prime example of what the following article is all about

Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done - Newsweek

Laugh that one off, chuckles.

What a bizarre article. Apparently some odd stories about Africa and the Amazon were retracted, but they have nothing to do with what Climategate is about! Exaggerated data, ignored data, lost data, purposely deleted data, lack of openness, conspiracy to obscure, perversion of peer review, and general high school popularity politics is what Climategate is about.
The Oxbridge Commission was supposed to look into the science behide AGW. Here is yesterday's newspaper story about the inquiry into the Oxbridge Commission
Oxburgh: UEA vice-chancellor was wrong to tell MPs he would investigate climate research | Environment | The Guardian

Committee member Graham Stringer MP said this went against what the university had said at the time.

"We were told very clearly both by press releases and by Acton when he came [before the committee] that this was going to be an investigation into the science. Oxburgh made it very clear that it was an investigation into the integrity of the scientists," he said.

"I don't think it's reasonable to expect that inquiry to repeat a peer review analysis of the papers themselves," he said.

"That is the responsibility of the journals that published them. I think the science community is satisfied and therefore parliament should be as well that the scientific reputations of the individuals and the unit remain intact."

Oxburgh defended the inquiry from MPs' suggestions that the nine-page report which took less than a month to complete was superficial or rushed.

here is the schedule of the panel that produced the nine page report that exhonerated the climategate scientists

Through FOI requests, we have obtained the actual schedule of the Oxburgh panel online here.

Here is the actual schedule for the panel hearings in Norwich on April 7-8.

9:30 a.m. – 9.45 a.m. Taxi to CRU (drop off Zicer Layby) Met by Acting Director, CRU Prof Peter Liss and Jacqui Churchill, VCO Coffee and Tour round CRU
9.45 a.m. – 10.45 a.m. Meeting with Phil Jones, Tim Osborn and team in CRU Library 30 minute presentation by Phil Jones followed by questions
10.45-11.00 am Coffee served in CRU library
11.00-12:30 pm Discussion – CRU Library
12:30-1:30 pm LUNCH for panel members – room number 00.2 CRU
1:30-3:30 pm Discussion – CRU Library
3.30-4.30 pm If needed: follow-up meeting with Phil Jones and Peter Liss
4.30-5.30 pm Panel private meeting
5.30 pm Peter Liss to chaperone Panel to Zicer Layby for taxis to hotel
7.00 p.m. Working Dinner at Caistor Hall

Thursday 8 April
8.45am- 9.00 a.m. Taxi to CRU (drop off Zicer Layby). Met by Acting Director, CRU Prof Peter Liss Coffee in CRU
9.15 a.m. – 10.45 a.m. Meeting with Phil Jones, Tim Osborn and team in CRU Library
10.45-11.00 am Coffee served in CRU library
11.00-12:30 pm Discussion – CRU Library
12:30-1:30 pm LUNCH for panel members – Sainsbury Centre, Garden Restaurant – Jacqui to collect and escort
1.30 p.m. – 3.00 p.m. Final Meeting
3.00 p.m. – 3.30 p.m. Coffee + Depart in taxis from Zicer Layby
Travel arrangements (obtained through FOI) show that this schedule was adhered to. Oxburgh arrived in Norwich at 6:30 pm on the evening of April 6 and had a train reservation back to Cambridge at 3.40 pm on April 8.

here is the pdf of that report
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP

Just to make this clear-- A day and a half meeting was called to ask the authors of several published scientific papers if they (the authors) thought their work was reasonable, and then to discuss, edit and write the Report. No whitewash there, eh? Do you think, perhaps, they should have talked to at least one person that wasn't actually under investigation to see what the other side was screaming about?

First off, the initial statement you made in your first paragraph is wrong. The article I quoted was indeed about climategate. I don't know what YOU were reading, but perhaps you missed the following:


But not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of “falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information” in February. In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claim—namely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was “unsubstantiated.” The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing.


.......The article "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim" (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as “green campaigners” with “little scientific expertise.” The article also stated that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.

In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure . . . was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that . . . Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.

The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change. . . . A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this.


What you gave does not change these facts in any shape, form or matter. Climate-gate was about IPCC scientist pushing false information and running interference to any investigation as well as "covering-up" their actions. That was not the case, and their was a retraction to that effect.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? Then how come they have not changed their position, as did the American Association of Petroleum Geologists did when there membership threatoned to resign the society if their position statement continued to deny the reality of AGW? So, what we have here is you stating that the membership is in revolt on the basis of a silly blog, while the only statement change in a scientific society has been in the opposite direction.

 

[IanC]

taichiliberal- I think you are confused about climategate. climategate is about the leaked emails and data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia (UEA). You seem to be lumping criticisms of the IPCC into the term 'climategate'.

this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

There have been at least 3 inquiries into climategate, all finding that there was no actual criminal misbehaviour, but chastising the principal scientists for sloppy work and data keeping and obstructing flow of information.

Because of the shallowness of investigation in both of the british inquiries, the government is now investigating the investigators. While I doubt that either Russell or Oxbridge will be censured for their shoddy work at investigating the integrity of the scientists (neither inquiry actually looked into the science), I can only hope for a more thorough scrutiny of how the science was done in the past and will be done in the future.

 

[editec]

We have been waying for two decades that global warming was a hoax and based on shoddy science.

I hope you're right.

I doubt it, but I can hope it.

 

[IanC]

OK, Ian, you don't like what the scientists all over the world are reporting. We understand that. But it changes the evidence not one whit.

It is not just the people in England, or Mann, or Dr. Hansen. It is people in all fields of science. Physicists, chemists, geologists, biologists, ect. that are stating the AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Even the agriculteral community is pointing out the changes in growing seasons and weather variability.

Go ahead and sing in the chorus of denial. Won't change what is happening.

Old Rocks- I can understand your position too. And I don't want to change the evidence, I want to change the mistaken presumptions about it. I have never denied that there has been warming or that mankind's production of CO2 has added to that warming. But the two of us differ in our outlook.

You see manman GHGs as the main driver of temperature increases. I see them as being an additional amount to natural warming after the Little Ice Age.

You see tipping points everywhere. I see the earth as biological system with built-in mechanisms to dampen out disruptions to the system.

You have extraordinary faith in scientific theorums and computer modelling that are based on simplistic and preliminary findings. I think we are a long way off from having a sound understanding of even the basics, let alone being able to predict events decades in the future.

You seem to believe in the infallibility of scientists and their means of measurements. I am skeptical of both the accuracy and the precision of many of the data sets used to support AGW. Computer code errors at NASA, crazy readings from satellites, bizarre corrections in some areas and no corrections in others, small sample data given tremendous weighting over the complete data set, etc lead me to believe that the error ranges are large and suceptable to confirmation bias.

I hope you are wrong and I am right because there is no possible way of ending the use of fossil fuels until technology develops new means of powering our lifestyle. Windmills and solar panels won't make a dent but nuclear power might. Until then, continue on with your plaintive cries of 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling'.

 

[taichiliberal]

taichiliberal- I think you are confused about climategate. climategate is about the leaked emails and data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia (UEA). You seem to be lumping criticisms of the IPCC into the term 'climategate'.

this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

There have been at least 3 inquiries into climategate, all finding that there was no actual criminal misbehaviour, but chastising the principal scientists for sloppy work and data keeping and obstructing flow of information.

Because of the shallowness of investigation in both of the british inquiries, the government is now investigating the investigators. While I doubt that either Russell or Oxbridge will be censured for their shoddy work at investigating the integrity of the scientists (neither inquiry actually looked into the science), I can only hope for a more thorough scrutiny of how the science was done in the past and will be done in the future.

Ian, the fact that you manufacture a quote from me that fits into your assertions is pathetic, given that the chronology of the posts shows your folly there.

Bottom line Ian, you're just beating a dead horse because you and your like minded cohorts just can't accept the fact that YOU WERE WRONG. Adding insult to injury, you initially went on a tear claiming that the article I sourced wasn't about the IPCC or climate-gate....and when I proved you wrong there, you don't have the maturity to admit error on that:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2717793-post44.html

You added NOTHING to the mix to avoid admitting that you were wrong on a crucial point.....and your insipid stubborness is showing to that effect.

 

[IanC]

Amazon rainforests have little or nothing to do with Climategate. Neither does the Himalayan glacier fiasco. Climategate is about the integrity of climate science and scientists that has been called into question by the leaked emails and data from the CRU of EAU.
Please direct me to the emails about the Amazon so that I might be enlightened.

 

[skookerasbil]

First, the year 2035 was a typo, it was supposed to read 2350. It should have been caught in the proof reading.

 

[skookerasbil]

Holy shit you environmental guys break the mold on levels of naive.............I mean really.

"a misprint".................

Even I cant come up with a vaunted skook analogy to make fun of that its so absurd................

 

[IanC]

The american inquiry into the science that became the focus of climategate was the Wegman Report. from wiki-Committee on Energy and Commerce Report (Wegman report)
In 2006 a team of statisticians led by Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, was assembled at the request of U.S. Rep. Joe Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield.[48] The report primarily focused on the statistical analysis used in the MBH paper, and also considered the personal and professional relationships between Mann et al. and other members of the paleoclimate community. Findings presented in this report (commonly known as the "Wegman Report"[49][50]) at a hearing of the subcommittee on oversight and investigations, chaired by Whitfield, included the following:

MBH98 and MBH99 were found to be "somewhat obscure and incomplete" and the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be "valid and compelling."
The report stated that the MBH method creates a hockey-stick shape even when supplied with random input data (Figure 4.4), and argues that the MBH method uses weather station data from 1902 to 1995 as a basis for calibrating other input data. "It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the MBH paper. The net effect of the decentering is to preferentially choose the so-called hockey stick shapes." (Section 4)
The report found that MBH method creates a PC1 statistic dominated by bristlecone and foxtail pine tree ring series (closely related species). However there is evidence in the literature, that the use of the bristlecone pine series as a temperature proxy may not be valid (suppressing "warm period" in the hockey stick handle); and that bristlecones do exhibit CO2-fertilized growth over the last 150 years (enhancing warming in the hockey stick blade).
It is noted that there is no evidence that Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.
A social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction is described of at least 43 authors with direct ties to Mann by virtue of having coauthored papers with him. The findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. Dr. Wegman stated this was a "hypothesis", and "should be taken with a grain of salt."[51]
Many of the same proxies are reused in most of the "independent studies" so these "cannot really claim to be independent verifications."[52]
The paleoclimate community is relatively isolated; its members rely heavily on statistical methods but do not seem to interact with the statistical community. Sharing of research materials, data, and results was done haphazardly and begrudgingly.
Overall, the committee believed that Mann’s assessments, that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium, cannot be supported by his analysis

from the http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdf

The debate over Dr. Mann’s principal components methodology has been going on for nearly three years. When we got involved, there was no evidence that a single issue was resolved or even nearing resolution. Dr. Mann’s RealClimate.org website said that all of the Mr. McIntyre and Dr. McKitrick claims had been ‘discredited’. UCAR had issued a news release saying that all their claims were ‘unfounded’. Mr. McIntyre replied on the ClimateAudit.org website. The climate science community seemed unable to either refute McIntyre’s claims or accept them. The situation was ripe for a third-party review of the types that we and Dr. North’s NRC panel have done.

While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.

“Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the [NAS] panel essentially agree. We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the ‘centering’ issue off the table. [Mann's] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics …. I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway.
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.

It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper.

We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.

Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

[The] fact that their paper fit some policy agendas has greatly enhanced their paper’s visibility… The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of temperature graphic dramatically illustrated the global warming issue and was adopted by the IPCC and many governments as the poster graphic. The graphics’ prominence together with the fact that it is based on incorrect use of [principal components analysis] puts Dr. Mann and his co-authors in a difficult face-saving position.

We have been to Michael Mann’s University of Virginia website and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick

Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the [McIntyre and McKitrick] papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs. The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis, has rallied around the [Mann] position, and has issued an extensive series of alternative assessments most of which appear to support the conclusions of MBH98/99… Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.

It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.

Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on [Mann's work]. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.

It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications.”

Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.”

 

[Charles_Main]

Come on, Walleyes. Scientific consensus, as in the vast majority of scientists that have looked at the evidence accept the theory that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Why else would all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that in their policy statements?

Surely, if the scientific consensus did not exist, you could find a scientific society in Outer Slobovia that would agree with your viewpoint.

There is a consensus that there is warming going on and it is a threat. The consensus breaks down when you talk about how much Human emission is a factor of it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Come on, Walleyes. Scientific consensus, as in the vast majority of scientists that have looked at the evidence accept the theory that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Why else would all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that in their policy statements?

Surely, if the scientific consensus did not exist, you could find a scientific society in Outer Slobovia that would agree with your viewpoint.

There is a consensus that there is warming going on and it is a threat. The consensus breaks down when you talk about how much Human emission is a factor of it.

Links to where the scientists are saying that? Everything that I have seen from the real scientists state that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fact. Anthropogenic, as in human caused. AGW.

So now show me links to some evidence that this is not the case.

 

[Old Rocks]

Virtually all the studies since Mann did his original graph have vindicated his conclusions. In fact, the NAS study, which critisized the Mann's statistical methods, said that using their prefered methods, the graph still came out the same.

It is simply that the compilaton of data that produced the Mann graph can be duplicated by any and all scientists, and the result is always the same, with various degrees of bumpiness.

Much-vindicated Michael Mann and Hockey Stick get final exoneration from Penn State — time for some major media apologies and retractions Climate Progress

The Wall Street Journal editorial page has for years railed against these scientific findings on climate change, even as the global consensus has reached nearly 100 percent of the scientific community, including the reports commissioned by the skeptical Bush White House. Thus, the hockey stick became the b�te noire of the editorial page as well as of the dwindling "climate skeptic" community, and right-wing Congressional officials such as Representative Joe Barton of Texas, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, took up the attack.

In response to these growing political pressures, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences conducted a major independent scientific review and updating of the hockey stick data and analysis. While acknowledging a range of uncertainties, that report came down squarely on the side of the Mann study. The NRC noted that "presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900." It went on to say "the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium." They noted significant uncertainties that remain for global temperatures before 1600, but emphasized "surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence."

The Wall Street Journal editorial page completely ignored this report. Instead, it cited a report commissioned by Congressman Barton from three statisticians with no background in climate science, who quibbled with aspects of Mann's methodology. Yet climate scientists quickly showed that addressing the criticisms has no practical effect on Mann's conclusions. Nonetheless, on this thoroughly flimsy and misleading basis, the editorial page declared that "there's no reason to believe that Mr. Mann, or his 'hockey stick' graph of global temperature changes, is right," called the research "dubious," and said that the climate science community "often more closely resembles a mutual-admiration society than a competitive and open-minded search for scientific knowledge." In other words, it hid the evidence and trashed climate science.

 

[IanC]

Virtually all the studies since Mann did his original graph have vindicated his conclusions. In fact, the NAS study, which critisized the Mann's statistical methods, said that using their prefered methods, the graph still came out the same.

It is simply that the compilaton of data that produced the Mann graph can be duplicated by any and all scientists, and the result is always the same, with various degrees of bumpiness.
....
QUOTE]


The statisticians emphatically state that they are using the data provided by Mann, and that they are not looking into the reliability of that data, only statistic methods of interpreting it. Garbage in, garbage out.

Mann (2008) used Tiljander core data upsidedown to recreate yet another hockeystick graph. eg the Middle Age Warm Period was cooler than the Little Ice Age and yet it still passed peer review and was even incorporated into another 'climate science' research paper. Presumably the statistical methods used were appropriate this time though.

 

[IanC]

taichiliberal- I think you are confused about climategate. climategate is about the leaked emails and data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia (UEA). You seem to be lumping criticisms of the IPCC into the term 'climategate'.

this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

There have been at least 3 inquiries into climategate, all finding that there was no actual criminal misbehaviour, but chastising the principal scientists for sloppy work and data keeping and obstructing flow of information.

Because of the shallowness of investigation in both of the british inquiries, the government is now investigating the investigators. While I doubt that either Russell or Oxbridge will be censured for their shoddy work at investigating the integrity of the scientists (neither inquiry actually looked into the science), I can only hope for a more thorough scrutiny of how the science was done in the past and will be done in the future.

Ian, the fact that you manufacture a quote from me that fits into your assertions is pathetic, given that the chronology of the posts shows your folly there.

Bottom line Ian, you're just beating a dead horse because you and your like minded cohorts just can't accept the fact that YOU WERE WRONG. Adding insult to injury, you initially went on a tear claiming that the article I sourced wasn't about the IPCC or climate-gate....and when I proved you wrong there, you don't have the maturity to admit error on that:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2717793-post44.html

You added NOTHING to the mix to avoid admitting that you were wrong on a crucial point.....and your insipid stubborness is showing to that effect.

where did I 'manufacture a quote from you'? and where did you show that the amazon had anything to do with the common definition of climategate?

 

[rightwinger]

Ooooo, the liberal global warming Ox is getting, ahem . . . Gored!

If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists.
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation. ​

But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.

For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.

Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, "Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges 'were not adequately considered,' the InterAcademy Council's investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report."

Yet the Himalayan claim wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data -- but on spec ulation in a phone interview by a single scientist. ​

​

​

​

Read all here:
Meltdown of the climate 'consensus' - NYPOST.com​

Now this is NO SURPRISE to conservatives. We have been waying for two decades that global warming was a hoax and based on shoddy science.​

YET, liberals have insisted on "consensus" science as their "moral authority" for global warming.​

But, since the emails were released showing the shoddy and somtimes FRADULENT efforts made to "prove" global warming, that "consensus" is falling apart.​

Scientists are no longer afraid to be called a "global warming denier" (like some holocaust denier, so ridiculous) and are finding the voice to speak up.​

Global warming is not about "saving the planet," but about far left radicals who want to take CONTROL of the planet and force their radical ideas on YOU and I.​

Like Al Gore, they want us to practically live in grass huts to "reduce our carbon footprint" while THEY live the lives of jet setters.​

Watching this lie, finally fall apart is wonderful to see.​

Remember this when you vote in November. The Democrats are all for this and wanted to force CAP AND TRADE on you, BASED ON A COMPLETE LIE. ​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Where in any of this does it say global warming doesn't exist? You take one element of a global warming analysis that may be questionable and use it to claim all evidence of global warming is now invalid

Typical rightwing flat earth logic

 

[Charles_Main]

Come on, Walleyes. Scientific consensus, as in the vast majority of scientists that have looked at the evidence accept the theory that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Why else would all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that in their policy statements?

Surely, if the scientific consensus did not exist, you could find a scientific society in Outer Slobovia that would agree with your viewpoint.

There is a consensus that there is warming going on and it is a threat. The consensus breaks down when you talk about how much Human emission is a factor of it.

Links to where the scientists are saying that? Everything that I have seen from the real scientists state that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fact. Anthropogenic, as in human caused. AGW.

So now show me links to some evidence that this is not the case.

Yes I know they all agree we cause some of it. They do not all agree we are the main cause nor do they all agree that cutting our emissions is going to save us in the long run.